Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 18:16:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, I'll be glad to answer your questions to get this ball rolling. Q1. Are Mormons Christian? A1. Yes, I think many Mormons are Christians, not all. Q2. What defines a Christian? A2. I'm going to answer inspite of your instructions. I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible, and who is devoted to following his teachings including the teachings of his appointed apostles. Q3. How do Mormons fail to meet this definition? A3. I don't think that Mormons themselves "fail" to meet that definition. I think the THEOLOGY of the LDS church fails to meet it. I think that Mormons themselves have been immersed in a non-Biblical concept of Christ and aren't aware it's different nor have they put two and two together and realized that the Christian concept of God in the Bible is the foundation for a monotheistic religion and that Mormon doctrine which adds to the Biblical concept of God is the foundation for a polytheistic religion. While I do think that many Mormons are Christians, I do not think that Mormonism is Christianity. Q4. Considering the wide range of beliefs in "Christian" churches, shouldn't the def. be fairly broad, or is there a single belief which qualifies or disqualifies each sect? A4. I think that one can be a Christian regardless of what church they attend. I think the definition of Christianity though, can not be broader than the descriptions, characterizations, and concepts that are contained in the Bible. Broad is one thing, entirely changing the nature of God is quite another. When the doctrines or additional scriptures of the LDS Church CHANGE the nature of God it becomes another religion. I think a more accurate title for the religion in question is Mormonism. It is not Christianity. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, May 23, 2003, 18:17:59
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 19:18:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Let me get some things out of the way before I zero in on the obscure part of your response.> Yes, I think many Mormons are Christians, not all. And many "Christians" (members of the various Christian sects) are Christians, but not all, correct? > I think the THEOLOGY of the LDS church fails to meet it. Ok, then we will direct further comments towards the theology, not individuals. > I do not think that Mormonism is Christianity. I understand what you are saying. However, are the following sects Christianity?: 1. 7th day adventists
2. Baptists
3. Jehovah's witnesses
4. Catholics
5. Methodists
6. Presbyterians. > I think a more accurate title for the religion in question is
> Mormonism. It is not Christianity. Ok, see questions 1-6 above. > I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of
> the Bible, and who is devoted to following his teachings
> including the teachings of his appointed apostles. I'm sure you realize this is a fairly subjective requirement. The Bible lacks detail on Christ's nature, and nearly every religion believes things about Christ that aren't taught in the Bible. How do you define the "Christ of the Bible"? -Dan
Modified by nofaith at Fri, May 23, 2003, 19:20:50
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 20:41:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, I'm going to c/p your post and intersperse. DAN: Let me get some things out of the way before I zero in on the obscure part of your response. (Dan quotes me) "Yes, I think many Mormons are Christians, not all." And many "Christians" (members of the various Christian sects) are Christians, but not all, correct? VICKI: Yes, I think that's an accurate statement. I can't generalize about individuals.
DAN: (quoting me) "I think the THEOLOGY of the LDS church fails to meet it." Ok, then we will direct further comments towards the theology, not individuals.
VICKI: I'm fine with that. DAN: (quoting me) "I do not think that Mormonism is Christianity." I understand what you are saying. However, are the following sects Christianity?: VICKI WITH ANSWERS: 1. 7th day adventists (I'm not sure, I don't know well, their beliefs. I think they have a prophetess who wrote additional scriptures. If that is so, I'd have to say no. I think they may be a Christian cult.)
2. Baptists (yes)
3. Jehovah's witnesses (no, I think they're a Christian cult)
4. Catholics (yes) 5. Methodists (yes, I think so but you might know a point of belief I'm not aware of) 6. Presbyterians. (yes,I think so but you might know a point of belief I'm not aware of) DAN: (quoting me) "I think a more accurate title for the religion in question is Mormonism. It is not Christianity." Ok, see questions 1-6 above. DAN: (quoting me) "I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible, and who is devoted to following his teachings including the teachings of his appointed apostles." I'm sure you realize this is a fairly subjective requirement. VICKI: Yes, I do. DAN: The Bible lacks detail on Christ's nature, and nearly every religion believes things about Christ that aren't taught in the Bible. VICKI: The Bible doesn't lack detail on Christ's nature, Dan. The entire NT is strewn with characterizations of Christ and BY Christ regarding his nature. Yes, nearly every religion believes things about Christ that aren't taught in the Bible. DAN: How do you define the "Christ of the Bible"? VICKI: Christ is God. (aside, this is going to look messy, I tried my best to clean it up and organize it. Also, if you want to discuss the religions you listed, I'd have to take a good look at their beliefs before doing so and address them separately. Perhaps you have information to compare and contrast these? )
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, May 23, 2003, 20:49:34
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 22:08:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi, Vicki:Again, we are dealing only with theology, and "Christianity," as opposed to individuals and "Christians." > The Bible doesn't lack detail on Christ's nature, Dan. The
> entire NT is strewn with characterizations of Christ and BY
> Christ regarding his nature. Since this doesn't affect the discussion, I won't focus excessively on this. However, when I say the NT lacks detail on Christ, I mean it is insufficient to determine much about his nature. I will accept that you consider it sufficient without further comment. Now, you previously had said, "I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible". You defined "Christ of the Bible" quite simply: "God." I'm going to give you a chance to get more specific. Unless I misunderstand you so far, you're saying Christianity is based on believing: 1). That Christ is God.
2). In Christ. Surely this can't be all there is to it. Otherwise, Mormonism fits the definition of Christianity. Mormons do believe Christ is God, and they certainly believe in Christ. So, let's sum it up in the following question: 1). What requirements must be met for a religion to be considered a Christian religion? -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 22:15:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, Not to worry, I'll try to get on one thread with you eventually. Turning the tables just a little, for now... What does the Bible lack in describing the nature of Christ? What else would you want to know? Victoria p.s. I am willing to write you a detailed comparison between Mormonism and Christianity, but not tonight. I will include references from both Mormon triple and the Bible to support my position. It's Friday, and I'm quite tired! I was hoping that Sarah Sue would join this thread or the one that I started. So far, no bites...
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, May 23, 2003, 22:16:44
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 20:39:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi, Vicki:To avoid the answers regarding individuals, I have rephrased my questions to reflect my intent. Your answers about individual Mormons are interesting, but aren't relevant to the discussion I wanted to have. 1). Does Mormonism qualify as a "Christian" religion?
2). What defines a "Christian" religion?
3). How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition? -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 20:53:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, Ugh! I just got finished replying to your post...do you know how long it took? And now you've re-worded! I want to smack you!:-) Please, before I continue on...take a look at the reply I just made. Then, if you will, could you let me know exactly what you want me to address? Do you want to put aside the post I just replied to and address this new one? I would appreciate it if we could get on one track and stay on it. You take the thread where you want it to go. I'll be back in awhile to see what you've decided. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, May 23, 2003, 20:54:26
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 21:05:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think you've answered my questions, but I will clarify in the other thread.-Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 22:10:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, I realize you posted again. I'm answering here to aggravate you. ;-) Q1. Does Mormonism qualify as a "Christian" religion? A1. No, I don't think so. Q2. What defines a "Christian" religion. A2. In my view, a Christian religion is one that is consistent with the teachings of Christ that are found in the Bible. This would include, the nature of Christ and salvation. (I might want to add to that another time) Q3. How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition? A2. I'll begin with these examples: Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is MONOTHEISTIC. Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different than the Christ described in the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that the God of the Bible.
Mormonism "teaches" a different method of salvation than that described in the Bible. Mormonism is a legalistic religion. The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the teachings of Christ. At least one of the additional scriptures contained in Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what else did he lie about? Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 22:30:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
These answers are good, but different yet again.Now, a Christian religion is "one that is consistent with the teachings of Christ that are found in the Bible." Do you also mean teachings about Christ? However, again, this is extremely subjective. One could disqualify any religion as Christian simply by declaring that it is "inconsistent with the teachings of Christ..." Who determines whether it is consistent? But, let's go on to your specific examples. > Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is
> MONOTHEISTIC. Strictly speaking, Biblical Christianity is not monotheistic. It very clearly refers to multiple deities. Christ is identified as deity, yet prays to God. I'm not going to get into a debate about the logic of the Trinity here, but the NT does not so easily fit into the monotheistic mold--it has one, yet three Gods. > Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different
> than the Christ described in the Bible. Is this another requirement of Christianity? > Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that
> the God of the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a different method
> of salvation than that described in the Bible. Are these also requirements of Christianity? > Mormonism is a legalistic religion Assuming you're right, must a religion NOT be legalistic in order to qualify as Christian? > The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just
> "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the
> teachings of Christ. Is it a requirement of Christianity that new works that contradict the teachings of Christ must not be used? > At least one of the additional scriptures contained in
> Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by
> Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what
> else did he lie about? Plenty. But it's irrelevant to whether the religion he founded qualifies as "Christian." If it were discovered that Martin Luther lied, would this disqualify Lutheranism as a Christian religion? As we go on, we find more and more requirements for a religion to be called 'Christian.' I suspect rather strongly that eventually what we will find is that you require a religion to correspond very closely to your beliefs before it can be called Christian. But we shall see. -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 22:43:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, Interspersing again... DAN: These answers are good, but different yet again. VICKI: Do they seem different? Where? It might be because I'm tired.
DAN: Now, a Christian religion is "one that is consistent with the teachings of Christ that are found in the Bible." Do you also mean teachings about Christ? VICKI: Yes, I do. DAN: However, again, this is extremely subjective. One could disqualify any religion as Christian simply by declaring that it is "inconsistent with the teachings of Christ..." Who determines whether it is consistent? But, let's go on to your specific examples. VICKI: The teachings of Christ determine consistency. Hmm...maybe congruency is a better word. DAN: But, let's go on to your specific examples.
> Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is > MONOTHEISTIC. Strictly speaking, Biblical Christianity is not monotheistic. It very clearly refers to multiple deities. Christ is identified as deity, yet prays to God. I'm not going to get into a debate about the logic of the Trinity here, but the NT does not so easily fit into the monotheistic mold--it has one, yet three Gods. VICKI: I'm not referring to Trinity doctrine here. > Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different > than the Christ described in the Bible. Is this another requirement of Christianity? VICKI: Yes, I would say so.
> Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that > the God of the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a different method > of salvation than that described in the Bible. Are these also requirements of Christianity? VICKI: Yes, I would say so. Are you setting me up? ;-)
> Mormonism is a legalistic religion Assuming you're right, must a religion NOT be legalistic in order to qualify as Christian? VICKI: Yes, I would say so since Christ's work on the cross replaced the legalism of the Old Testament with a grace-based path to salvation. > The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just > "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the > teachings of Christ. Is it a requirement of Christianity that new works that contradict the teachings of Christ must not be used? VICKI: Yes, I think so.
> At least one of the additional scriptures contained in > Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by > Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what > else did he lie about? Plenty. But it's irrelevant to whether the religion he founded qualifies as "Christian." If it were discovered that Martin Luther lied, would this disqualify Lutheranism as a Christian religion? VICKI: No, it's entirely relevant, Dan. As we go on, we find more and more requirements for a religion to be called 'Christian.' I suspect rather strongly that eventually what we will find is that you require a religion to correspond very closely to your beliefs before it can be called Christian. But we shall see. -Dan VICKI: As I stated in my post to you above, Dan. I will be most willing to prepare a detailed post that contrasts Mormonism with Christianity and supply scripture ref's from the Mormon triple and the Bible. You are free to suspect anything you wish, Dan.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 23:10:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm awake, I'm tired, I will not reply to your post tonight unless I am struck with insomnia.Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/23/2003, 23:49:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Victoria,I knew you would not be able to sleep, I just knew it :-) JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/23/2003, 23:04:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
Attempting to “define” Christianity by minutia seems out of touch with the broad review of what are regarded as the great world religions.I listed some in “Christianity -- the Larger Picture. To attempt to narrow and narrow the scope of “Christianity” by minutia is to ignore the historical evolution of cultures which gave rise to Christianity from its earliest beginnings through the great divides which have brought us to the current plethora of denominations and groups that claim the Bible as a/the principle writing that is the basis for their particular or peculiar (if it looks strange to one) doctrines. Victoria, you might consider one of the problems in the Southern Baptist Convention today right here. I only cite it as example to demonstrate that even within one of those more than a thousand groups identified as Christian there is division. It has been division or discontent or desire for exclusivity which has driven the formation of factions in Christianity. It is a religion with much more diversity than you seem to recognize as you attempt to pin-hole what is and what is not Christian by assertion. Fundamentalism in Christianity is generally intent on exclusion. It sets up a version of: My idea of Christianity is the right idea. Christian is what I say it is. Views more diverse than I can tolerate are not Christian. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it lacks the scholarly view of the larger picture, the history of religions in general, and the history of Christianity in particular. JAK
Modified by JAK at Fri, May 23, 2003, 23:04:42
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 23:42:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm summing up in another post, but you didn't answer my question: "If it were discovered that Martin Luther lied, would this disqualify Lutheranism as a Christian religion?"-Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 11:27:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, Did Martin Luther prepare a volume of writings, claim that they were translated from an ancient text written by a Biblical Patriarch and present them to his congregation as scripture?
Luther did translate the Bible, didn't he? Did he do so honestly and accurately or was he a scam artist? BTW, why did it never occur to the early Mormons, when presented with the Book of Abraham and the story of it's translation, to ask the simple question as to why Abraham wrote in EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS? Good thing for Joe, there were not Egyptologists in the neighborhood at the time. Victoria
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/24/2003, 13:37:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria wrote: "BTW, why did it never occur to the early Mormons, when presented with the Book of Abraham and the story of it's translation, to ask the simple question as to why Abraham wrote in EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS? Good thing for Joe, there were not Egyptologists in the neighborhood at the time."My response: Good question, and I agree with you that it was a
"Good thing for Joe, there were not Egyptologists in the neighborhood at the time." However, assuming that Abraham was a real, historical character who wrote anything at all (about which, in itself, there is ample reason to doubt) rather than a purely legendary figure, he could not have written it using the Hebrew alphabet, as that had not yet been invented. He would have had to adapt some already existing form of writing (such as Egyptian hieroglyphics) to writing down whatever he wished to write. A deeper and more damaging question is, "why would any writings of an ancient Hebrew patriarch have been preserved by pagan Egyptians for more than a thousand years only to be buried around the first century C.E. with an Egytian mummy and disguised as a standard, pagan funerary document?" Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Sat, May 24, 2003, 13:46:47
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 13:59:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Gunnar! So nice to see you posting fairly regularly here again! I always think of this place as a ghost town whenever you and Craig aren't here. I like the explanation you offered about Abraham and the Hebrew alphabet. I am not well familiar with the history and development of the ancient languages. That would be a most interesting research! Perhaps I'll get round to it once I've gotten the origins of Christian attitudes about homosexuality issues dealt with. I injected the Book of Abraham as an example. I feel fully convinced that the Book of Abraham has been proven a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. It seems to me that I read that at the time of this "translation" Joseph was studying Egyptian. What fits in my mind, given what else I've read about Joseph's development of the Latter Day Saints concept, is that Joseph most likely studied enough to be able to articulate the explanation for his Book of Abraham as to be able to convince all others around him who knew nothing to the contrary. Wish we had a time machine and could go back and witness the life and time's of Joseph Smith and the development of his church! I think it would be most interesting if we were able to view those occurrences through the lens of today's knowledge. And not just Joseph, but the times of Christ as well. As it stands, we have only ancient writings and literature to help us understand how these religions came to be. I never cease to find it fascinating and to the dismay of many here, I never cease to retain my belief in God. Your friend,
Victoria p.s. Board trivia: My first appearance on the old Forum 2 was on a thread about the Book of Abraham and my first reply was to you about the ICR! Wow, those were the days. There has been a long period of time just recently when I fondly recalled those old days here and doubted I'd ever see the types of discussions that we engaged in. It has been only in the last month, I'd say, that I see the forum coming to intellectual life again. I'm very glad for that!
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/26/2003, 02:56:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
I would definitely agree with you that this forum would lose a lot without Craig C.'s inputs. He is a favorite of mine as well. Plus, he is the only one I have so far met in person, which has only further enhanced my admiration for him. I am flattered to be mentioned in the same breath with him, but there are a number of other regular posters here besides Craig C. whose disappearance from this forum would diminish it far more than my disappearance. I hesitate to name them for fear of inadvertently slighting one or more of them by forgetting to include them. Some of them haven't posted for a long time, and I miss them.Gunnar
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/28/2003, 22:29:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks, for the kind words, Gunnar. While I share your feelings about many who have not posted in some time, I disagree with your somewhat self deprecating comments. From the beginning, you have always been one of my favorite posters and a main reason for posting here. I have always admired the wise and warm tone of your posts. BTW, Vicki, if you should read this post, I should say that I also enjoy many of your posts, even when we strongly disagree. This forum needs a fiesty little fire-ball. :) Craig
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/29/2003, 01:12:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
all that keeps the rest of you from falling asleep at your computers! Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Thu, May 29, 2003, 01:15:48
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 07:02:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
If Martin Luther were dishonest about what he taught and said would this disqualify Lutheranism as a Christian religion?"Yes" or "No"? To my knowledge the answers to your questions here are "no". -Dan
Modified by nofaith at Sun, May 25, 2003, 07:03:19
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 13:39:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, I can't answer your question. In your post above you specifically focus on Martin Luther. As I stated to you I don't know much about him. I asked you questions in order to evaluate information YOU might have. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not answered your question yes or no. I have asked for more information on Martin Luther. Just as when I answered you questions about various denominations on another post and qualified my answers with the possibility that you might have information that I don't have. If you have information about Martin Luther, please present it so I can evaluate it and answer your question. Did Martin Luther intentionally conduct a scriptural hoax? If he did, I'd have to say he discredited himself. Does he discredit Lutheran Theology? As I said, I don't know the development of the Lutheran Church. If he DID conduct a hoax, then someone must have come later and corrected his wrong doing for I have attended the Lutheran Church (as well as the LDS Church and others) and am fairly well acquainted with the theology of the Lutheran Church (as well as the LDS Church and others) and I'd have to say that the Lutheran Church is a Christian church. If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it. At this juncture, I would like to say that the issue of whether or not Mormonism is Christianity is on the table, as is my position and evidences to support my position. I have isolated those in a series of posts which I prepared for you to address in a new thread at the top. I have offered myself up to you as a willing participant in your upcoming "snare" as you "make your point". I hope that you will likewise offer yourself up as a willing participant in forthright discussion and objective analysis of the material I prepared for you and present in my series of posts above. I wrote those lengthy posts for you Dan, I am not willing to play games with the issue at hand. I expect you to deal with the material I presented as I have dealt with your requests on this thread. Should you fail to do so, I will assume that you are either unwilling or unable to debate the substance of the issue on the table. I see this as a cooperative intellectual joint effort, Dan. My cards on on the table. Your deal, sir. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 13:54:25
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 15:29:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki, this is a theoretical question, not a slam on Martin Luther. The reason I ask the question is because you have implied that because of Joseph Smith's dishonesty, Mormonism could not possible be a Christian religion. I'm simply asking whether you would be willing to apply the same standard to Lutheranism (just an example I picked out of a hat). The specifics of Martin Luther are irrelevant. The question I'm really asking is this:If the founder of another Church were found to have committed a fraud like Joseph Smith did, would this automatically discredit his/her church as Christian? If the answer is "no", it is irrelevant whether J.S. was fraud. This tells us nothing about whether his sect qualifies as Christian. > If he DID conduct a hoax, then someone must have come later
> and corrected his wrong doing for I have attended the
> Lutheran Church (as well as the LDS Church and others) and am
> fairly well acquainted with the theology of the Lutheran
> Church (as well as the LDS Church and others) and I'd have to
> say that the Lutheran Church is a Christian church. Would you be willing to apply the same standard to Mormonism? If someone "came later and corrected his wrong doing" would you ignore Joseph Smith's fraud or inaccurate teachings? > I have offered myself up to you as a willing participant in
> your upcoming "snare" as you "make your point". There is no snare. However, I think it is you who will make my point, and I think you have already done it. I will get to that later. > I wrote those lengthy posts for you Dan, I am not willing to
> play games with the issue at hand. Frankly, I'm astounded you would suggest I'm trying to play games. I asked you a theoretical question which you have refused to answer. The sole reason I asked you this question was to determine whether you are treating Mormonism as a special case, or whether your standards apply to all Churches. Your refusal to answer makes you look like the one who is playing games. I will certainly get to your points; there are many, though! -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 16:31:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan, In your post you ask me a critical question: "Would you be willing to apply the same standard to Mormonism? If someone "came later and corrected his wrong doing" would you ignore Joseph Smith's fraud or inaccurate teachings?"
In a word, yes, I would. Dan, if the LDS Church wishes to authenticate itself, in my view, it needs to label itself as something that more accurately describes it's teachings. It's teachings do not in any way, fashion or form represent Christianity. The infact, contradict the teachings of the Bible. In my view, people are already correcting the wrong doing's of Joseph Smith. The evidence of his hoaxes is undeniable. I actually read a poster on another forum say that there is no proof that the Book of Abraham is fraudulent! More and more the LDS Church attempts to affiliate itself with Christian orthodoxy. So long as there are people in Christian orthodox churches monitoring the LDS Church there will be constant opposition to it's representing itself as a Christian church. While I don't have a crystal ball I see two possible outcomes. The LDS Church will retain it's teachings (as it has a right to do) and represent itself as a Mormon church (which is accurate) or it will abandon it's additional doctrines (the one's that contradict the Bible) and then Dan, guess what, it really would be a Christian church. The LDS Church needs to pick a spot and land on it. It's either Mormon or it's Christian. It also needs to do something about the contradictions within it's own triple, Dan. I think it would be well worth the effort for the powers that be in the LDS Church to hold council and reform their own doctrines so they don't contradict themselves (BOM/D&C). One of my personal causes, if you will, is to speak what I see as the truth and to support my position with evidences. I believe I have done that in the thread above. What I would not like to see, Dan, is for people who have been raised up in Mormonism who realize some of the inappropriateness of it's foundational leaders to throw the Christian baby out with the Mormon bathwater. I would very much like the LDS to know there is spiritual life beyond their church. Some have obviously chosen agnosticism and atheism, many have retained their belief in God and found a good fit in other churches. Dan, if you knew me well enough and you might already, you'd know I'd fight for them just to have the information they need to arm themselves for the journey. Contrary to the simplistic characterizations of my position, I do not think of it as "mine is better than yours". If I were to couch it in those sorts of terms I'd have to say "yours isn't mine, please don't call it mine, call it what it IS". Yes, I know my posts above are lengthy. I am sure you didn't expect that from me since I've been entrenched in stupid psycho-dramas with the big M for most of the time you've been around here. The woman who wrote those posts is the one who entered the scene here 2 1/2 years ago and stayed. And as I stated earlier and have stated numerous times on this forum, I came by my position regarding the Christianity of Mormonism quite honestly and unintentionally for the reason I entered into about 2 years of research was with the intent of PROVING TO MY OWN PASTOR that the LDS Church IS a Christian church. I drew the only conclusions that I could, and made painstaking efforts in my research and infact did not reach a conclusion for about TWO YEARS, that the LDS Church isn't a Christian church. I don't think my position is biased, I think it is an accurate evaluation of the evidence. In closing Dan, I would offer to you that if someone were to come along and correct the wrong doings of Joseph Smith and others, what the LDS Church would be left with Dan--is the Bible. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 16:33:43
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/25/2003, 17:07:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Vicki, I remember doubting the Bible long before I doubted the Book of Mormon. In fact, for some time, belief in the Book of Mormon was the only thing that made me think the Bible was worth believing. To believe in the Bible, you have to be willing to accept crazy and bizarre things: angels zooming all over the planet, chariots of fire blazing off into heaven, people rising from the dead, floods covering the entire earth and killing every living thing, people walking around in a red hot furnace and coming out unburnt, people walking on water, water being converted into wine, the languages of the planet being confounded in a day, people turning into salt, talking donkeys, fire coming down from heaven to burn up a pile of wet logs (and pagan priests), and on and on and on. In a nutshell, to believe in the Bible, you have to negate common sense (let alone science).. If you really want me or any other agnostic/atheist person to accept your view, you need to show why belief in crazy things is justified. I could just as easily choose to believe in Santa Claus. In fact, belief in Santa Claus might actually be more justified than belief in the stories of the Bible: I have actually received verifiable gifts from Santa! But.... wait a minute, could this be another deception? :-)
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Sun, May 25, 2003, 17:09:24
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 18:25:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Craig, You are well able to evaluate the meaning of a post. When it comes to this issue, your objectivity flies out the window. The entire point of this thread was to hash out honestly, whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. It is not. Are you able to view your former religion through the scope of this discussion? As I pointed out to Dan, and have listed on the board a multitude of times, the additional scriptures of Mormonism contradict Christianity. Likewise, if one were to subtract the Mormon triple as well as other discourses, one would be left with the Bible...Christianity. On this thread JAK has engaged in off topic rhetoric and focus shifting, Dan has engaged in focusing on definitions rather than the theology itself, and you dear, Craig, you resort to off hand humor. The question isn't whether or not I want you or any other agnostic/atheist to accept my view, the question is Craig, can a former LDS objectively evaluate the evidence I provided above in a series of posts and draw an accurate non-defensive conclusion? And in the case of JAK, can JAK conduct a discussion without resorting to the tactics he so readily criticizes others of using? The answer to both, it would seem, is no. If it contradicts Craig, it isn't. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 18:27:08
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/25/2003, 19:05:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Vicki,You say, When it comes to this issue, your objectivity flies out the window. You are saying I cannot be objective on this issue because of my Mormon past. Are you disqualifying anyone with ties to Mormonism? How will you disqualify JAK? The entire point of this thread was to hash out honestly, whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. Yes, and so? You say, Are you able to view your former religion through the scope of this discussion? Sure. Why not?
You say, the additional scriptures of Mormonism contradict Christianity There are many versions of Christianity. Mormonism contradicts your version, but your version contradicts other versions as well. You say, if one were to subtract the Mormon triple as well as other discourses, one would be left with the Bible...Christianity. So?? Your point is? You say, you resort to off hand humor. Sorry. That'll be 20 Hail Maries for me (but would that be Christian of me?). You say, Can a former LDS objectively evaluate the evidence I provided above in a series of posts and draw an accurate non-defensive conclusion? Yes Here is a typical dictionary definition of "Christianity" Chris·ti·an·i·ty n
1. the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ
2. the fact of holding Christian beliefs or being a Christian
3. all Christian people considered as a group. Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. Please note that this definition says nothing about founder fraud, polytheism, or the other constraints on Christianity that you were imposing. As Dan says, you are redefining Christianity to make sure that it disqualifies Mormonism. You say, Can JAK conduct a discussion without resorting to the tactics he so readily criticizes others of using? Now I see how you plan to disqualify JAK. When everyone is disqualified, you'll be the last person left, and you alone will be able to decide which sneeches get stars on their bellies.. Good strategy! Craig .
Modified by Craig C. at Sun, May 25, 2003, 19:09:04
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 20:44:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here's the strategy:1. I state a position
2. I supply evidences to support my position
3. Other posters objectively evalute my evidences, draw conclusions as to whether or not my evidences support my position.
4. When others attempt to divert attention away from the issue on the table, I say so. Dan's already working his way through my posts above. You come too. Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 21:53:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, It is not the “strategy.” You assume a plethora of fundamentalist doctrine for which no evidence exists then you pick and choose what you will allow and present calling it “evidence.” The conclusions are already assumed by you and the “evidence” is contrivance to legitimize doctrine. So, you entirely misstate the “strategy” which you employ. Conclusion before discovery of fact makes “strategy” (as you refer) irrelevant. And the “position” is not yours. It is that of fundamentalist dogma which is parroted by you. Dan’s analysis is quite good as I expect Craig’s will be or would be as well. JAK
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/25/2003, 22:49:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
OK Vicki,Here is the problem: Your "evidence" consists of scriptural interpretations. Though you can't see it, your interpretations are just ONE possible interpretation. I could provide other interpretations, but I have zero interest in getting into a scripture bash with you. Imagine being invited by a Muslim into an argument about his interpretation of the Koran, especially as it has to bear on the question of which Islamic sect gets to call itself "Muslim". Since you do not recognize the Koran as a particularly useful book, you would not be interested . That's how I now feel about the Bible. As a young Mormon missionary, I did engage in Biblical scripture bashes with some Evangelicals. I enjoyed them for the testosterone rush, and I don't remember ever losing one (nor do I remember ever convincing them I was right). But thinking back on them now, they seem so incredibly petty - like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This nonsense about which religion gets to be "Christian" strikes me the same way - a silly argument about the stars on the bellies of sneeches. As the good bard once said, it is like a "a fool strutting and fretting his time upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Craig
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 23:03:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Craig, These exchanges began when Sarah Sue arrived on the scene and said that Mormons were not Christians in her post. I then replied to her with a brief series of questions. The purpose of my questions was to see if she differentiated between indivuals and the theology. She disappeared. Dan and I ended up in these exchanges when I invited him to post the topic he suggested and that I would reply. I would very much like to study the Koran and I don't get a testosterone rush out of these discussions. Dan raised the issue and I agreed to address it. Victoria p.s. Please do not quote the bard here, it sends me traveling off someplace else. ;-)
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 19:14:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, You need to learn about Martin Luther. You stated: “...I don't know much about him.” Were it not for Martin Luther, Southern Baptist would not exist nor would your particular doctrines of Christianity. It was Martin Luther who challenged the church of Rome to reform, to change. The Roman Catholic Church refused at that time to reform. The result was the Protestant Reformation from which all subsequent “protests” in the extension of the Protestant Reformation evolved. The historic date for that was 1511 C. E. The Protestant Reformation is a critical development in Christianity which led to the many Protestant denominations that followed. The Southern Baptist denomination and all 20 or more Baptist denominations are a direct result of the Protestant Reformation. Your doctrine owes a huge debt (religiously speaking) to Martin Luther. That you do not know about him and his influence on Christianity is astounding! JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/23/2003, 23:46:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan,Your last paragraph brought me in here. Historically, individual religions tend to be exclusive. Otherwise, they must see themselves as one among many. They are, of course, but they don’t like that idea. Hence, each tends to develop something which it can claim as distinguishing IT from all the others. Christianity has perhaps a much greater history of this because of its time-frame for development. The fact that as early as 800 C.E. one group of Christians got out of touch literally with another group resulted in the development of differences which were never again to be reconciled. The second blow between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic came 500 years later. The ultimate devastating blow came in the 1500s. The intent of Martin Luther to reform and enlighten the church of Rome did not work. With the expansion of peoples (transportation), the colonizing of America, the splits and divisions which have occurred in the past 500 years, Christianity is not what it once was. Despite the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to begin the Counter Reformation to reunite the church, the Genie was out of the bottle so to speak. Since 1500 C.E., there has been so much infusion of information and adaptation of that information that Christianity remains fractured. The liberalizing of Christianity is happening along with the rigidity of fundamentalists who remain absolutists. Even so, Christianity is employed (can’t think of a better term) by politicians. It is used today by various politicians (the President) in general references with strong emotional appeal and universal appeal. And it is unlikely that anyone could become President of the United States without claiming to believe in God. John F. Kennedy faced serious opposition from Protestants who suggested that the Pope would become the leader of the United States. Kennedy successfully defused that. And as President, Kennedy was always the intellectual and made minimal references to religion. The fear of Roman Catholicism was largely abated. In 2004, if a Jewish person runs or becomes the nominee, religion will become an issue yet again in politics. The digression is merely to amplify that religious tolerance is likely to become an issue again in a presidential run. Attempting to define Christian in a narrow and exclusive way only works within small partisan closed groups. Your questions are quite excellent as you attempt to focus on Victoria’s definition. But, I much prefer the more comprehensive recognition of wide diversity which can be found in the larger umbrella of those who all claim Christianity in some way. If we do that, we can discuss differences between rival groups and rival doctrines. I probably should apologize for jumping in here and may be asked to refrain from posting in this thread. JAK
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/24/2003, 02:32:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi, JAK:You're of course welcome to post here. I'm not unaware of the issues you bring up here. You can probably see that I'm going somewhere with this, and it isn't to find a definition of Christianity. I'm not trying to trap Vicki in her words, but I do want her to spell out exactly why she feels Mormons can't be qualified as Christians. Although she probably won't change her opinion, there might be something we can learn from this discussion. -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 14:21:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, In your post to JAK, you comment as follows: You can probably see that I'm going somewhere with this, and it isn't to find a definition of Christianity. Me: Dan, do not fool yourself into thinking that *I* don't knwo where you're going too. As my words in other posts to you indicate: "take it where you want it to go" and "are you setting me up?". I freely offer myself to you for those purposes. If I were not confident in my position regarding the Christianity of Mormonism, I wouldn't extend the invitation to you. I suspect you will learn something as well about my position and also about me. Don't let those nonsensical battles you've seen cause you to underestimate my ability to hold my own in forthright discussion. I didn't eek out a place here as a regular contributor and strong defender of Christianity via my role in Martin's dramatic theatrical undertakings.
You: I'm not trying to trap Vicki in her words, but I do want her to spell out exactly why she feels Mormons can't be qualified as Christians. Me: And that I will do. I will take time today to prepare my post to you contrasting Mormon and Christian beliefs using scripture ref's from boths sides to support my claim that Mormonism isn't Christianity, that it infact, contradicts it. If it contradicts...it ain't it. Later,
Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 15:12:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Dan, I'm just about to offer my reply to you regarding the Christianity of Mormonism. I have decided, because it will be quite lengthy, to place it at the top of the front page and isolate it for discussion. If you need me to come back to this thread to participate in your "set up", I will be glad to meet your request. You decided. Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 11:23:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK writes: I probably should apologize for jumping in here and may be asked to refrain from posting in this thread.
Victori: Oh stop it, JAK. My comment "Hey this is a closed threads" was a take off (joke) on your comments in another thread. Even if I WERE to ask a person not to post on a thread...what actual authority do I have to do so and how do you suppose I could enforce such a request?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/24/2003, 21:52:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,The purpose and point of my post was to clarify what we know historically about early divisions in Christianity. That is the focus of my review. Historically, Christianity is a most fractured religion. Additional fractures which occurred following the Protestant Reformation (1511 C.E.) are a continuation of protest in some form. Attempting a narrow definition of Christianity is to ignore and/or disregard the history which is known and documented about that religion. My text-link to the Southern Baptist’s various statements on homosexuality demonstrated the controversy within a single denomination of Christianity. It is such controversies which historically have resulted in splits in which one set of “believers” breaks with another set of “believers” who originally had unity -- perhaps because they had never confronted some particular issue. (I saw the “;-)” on “closed thread.” That is a non-issue.) No single individual can define Christianity as if such a definition encompassed the extent and diversity of that religion in its many denominations, sects, and cults. And the distinction between those three terms is generally quite subjective. Only if persons have stated agreements on what each term means, and only if those agreements are objectively identified is there much point to hair-splitting over what they mean. There are some points of distinction in academic circles. It is noteworthy that you made no effort to refute the historical review which was the essence of my post here. Every group (denomination, sect, and/or cult) is a product of evolution of culture and religion from within or from outside in that culture. You previously agreed with that in a post:
"ME: I do not fail to recognize that Christianity has it's roots in other religious traditions, belief systems, evolving political and cultural perspectives over a period of many years." Dan was/is doing an excellent analytical pursuit. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 22:22:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK, You wrote: "It is noteworthy that you made no effort to refute the historical review which was the essence of my post here." You are right, I made no effort to refute the historical review contained in your post. Your comments were to Dan, and I largely agree with them. You likewise, have made no effort to refute the factual review of Mormonsim vs Christianity that I've offered in my lengthy series of posts at the top of the board. Why? I have left no poster without a reply who has posted to me here. Why do you indicate otherwise? What I objected to was your statement wherein you imply that you may be "asked" not to post here. That was entirely irrelevant to what you see going on in this thread directed toward me and intended to support your claims below on another thread. It was a underhanded jab at me and I dislike the spin. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 22:47:20
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/24/2003, 23:39:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,You’re being evasive. Why? Since you come to discuss the Mormon group with a clear bias against it, you lack objectivity in your remarks. Your posts demonstrate that bias. Many here who come from a Mormon background have refuted your characterization of the Mormon faith. These are people who were Mormons and are now atheist/agnostic contributors here. Someone who converted from the Mormon beliefs to the Baptist beliefs is not someone who is objective either in a scholarly way to discuss beliefs from their historical perspectives. And that is religiously a close jump compared with jumping from Mormon to Islam. Your “review” is not factual. You assert doctrine and pretend it is factual. You make up interpretations of select Bible scripts and apply them in various universal ways all the while ignoring other Bible scripts which we have discussed at length on this forum. Gunnar and others have eloquently described how you dismiss beliefs of those with whom you disagree and categorize them as “not Christian.” It is because those other views do not agree with your own assertions that you do that -- not because they are “not Christian.” It is also an attempt to seize power for your own religious bias projecting it as Christian while you exclude others who have different interpretations from yours (or more likely different from the Southern Baptist doctrines). Now I know you have recognized you are a cafeteria Southern Baptist, rejecting some doctrines while accepting others. But fundamentally in these discussions you largely mirror the fundamentalist view of Southern Baptists. I asked you what specific doctrines of the Southern Baptists do you reject. You never answered. Why didn’t you answer that question? (You ought not to try that why didn’t you answer stuff when you employ that very stance yourself and pass it off with “When I’m done, I’m DONE.” Or you claim you are bored, or you claim you lost interest. When “your done” it generally means you have no effective rejoinder because you substitute “I believe” for fact, evidence, and analysis. This whole not post bit is a red herring. You may feel guilty about having used if for real on this forum long ago. Forget it. I “dislike” your spin that only you can articulate what IS and what IS NOT “CHRISTIAN.” That is a real issue with which I take exception. YOU do not speak for Christians in general or for Christianity as a religion which claims world-wide a number that includes every person which can be counted in every division of Christianity as opposed to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sat, May 24, 2003, 23:40:27
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/23/2003, 22:42:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
Debate over definition is generally not very productive. Rather than attempting to pigeon hole individuals or groups, it is more useful to look at the evolution of the religion in question. Because of the long history of Christianity and its many divisions, 2 What defines a Christian depends on whom you ask. Unless...one is willing to ask it at a level of scholarship or analysis which is inclusive, one is likely to find partisans who want to exclude Christians who disagree with them on major or even minor points of doctrine. Such practice is often assertion of superiority by exclusion. Some Protestants declare that Roman Catholics are not Christian. They offer a beliefs or doctrines which Catholics have and which they reject. Sometimes they straw-man doctrine. A favorite is that Catholics worship the virgin Mary. They don’t, but Protestants who wish to exclude the Roman Catholic Church from Christianity construct Catholic belief to suit their purposes for exclusion. This is but one example of how this occurs. By most objective scholarly accounts, there are more than a thousand Christian denominations, sects, and/or cults. While those terms often evoke emotional responses, there is no reason they should. Christianity remained practically one community for nearly a thousand years. But in the 800s, division began to separate the church at Rome and the church at Constantinople. In 1054 C.E., rivalries between the two groups resulted in a separation between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. This great divide was called a schism. A second schism The Great Schism of the West, began in the late 1300s C.E. This schism led to rival popes and seriously divided Christianity. The next great division was of course the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. That break with the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants have continued to divide until today we have denominations, sects, and cults exceeding a thousand. Now this is key in this discussion of Who is Christian. Virtually every group, however it came to be, has asserted that IT is somehow inherently more Christian than other groups. That inherent stated or implicit superiority has led some to declare that others who call themselves Christian are not Christian. Historically, any group (denomination, sect, or cult) which claims the 66 books of the Bible as principle source for its doctrines and practices is connected with Christianity. As a world religion, Christianity includes those who accept the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ time did not approve the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. The name Christ comes from a Greek word for Messiah. Any group or person which claims that Jesus was/is Christ can be regarded as a Christian. The fact that these more than one thousand different groups disagree on various doctrines does not exclude them from Christianity as a major world religion today. Some non-Christian religions are these: Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Judaism (though historically close in the evolution of Christianity) Individual dogmas promoting one group or person as Christian or more nearly Christian than another is a kind of argument over definition. But, that seems to be what some Christians themselves tend to do. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/23/2003, 23:08:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK, I was just about to log off when I noticed your post here. I understand and appreciate what you've said here about the history of Christianity. That is all well and good. 1. What does the Biblical Christ say about his nature? Is
he, according to himself, self existent? 2. What does the Biblical Christ say about his diety? 3. What does the Biblical Christ say about his relationship
to God?
4. What does the Biblical Christ say about his relationship
to the Holy Spirit?
5. What does the Biblical Christ say about salvation? 6. What does the Biblical Christ say about legalism vs grace? Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, May 23, 2003, 23:14:46
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/24/2003, 00:00:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Victoria,I apologize. I also do not have insomnia. However, I have responses to your questions here. JAK
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
05/23/2003, 23:26:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
Much thought has been put into this by me and such thought, having been made by me, has driven me to be determined to move for the foundation of religion to preach the brotherhood that is Jesus and Buddha by me.Is it not Jesus who says, of thy neighbour to be kind. Is it not Jesus, he of the other Cheek. Is it not Jesus who teaches the reverence and love of all things and, of all things, Love. To this I say, let us join and acknowledge our Christian brothers, brothers in Christ, those Buddhists of Orient, deep within our welcoming bosom. Amen Pope Singularus CXLIV of Ye MMMCCXXIII Erisian Church of Ye Holy Hopefully Not too Mysterious Mysteries.
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/23/2003, 23:43:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki, let me know if any of the following is wrong.Requirements for a religion to be considered "Christian": 1). Belief in Christ (of the Bible)
2). Belief that Christ is God
3). Teachings are consistent with the teachings of/about Christ from the Bible.
4). Monotheistic
5). Must not "teach" a different Christ than taught in the Bible.
6). Must not teach a different God than taught in the Bible.
7). Must not teach a different method of salvation than taught in the Bible.
8). Must not be legalistic (i.e., must not require 'works' to be saved).
9). Must not have teachings that contradict the teachings of Christ.
10). Founder of religion must not have lied about things (you'll have to help me out on getting this more specific). -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/24/2003, 00:10:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
6 negatives to 4 positives in this “Christianity” so far.Doesn’t seem very positive. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 11:39:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here, I'll re-phrase Dans remarks.1). Belief in Christ (of the Bible)
2). Belief that Christ is God
3). Teachings are consistent with the teachings of/about Christ from the Bible.
4). Monotheistic
5). Must "teach" the Christ taught in the Bible.
6). Must teach the God taught in the Bible.
7). Must teach the method of salvation taught in the Bible.
8). Must not be legalistic (i.e., must not require 'works' to be saved).
9). Must have teachings that are consistent with the teachings of Christ. 10). Founder of religion must not have prepared writings, claimed to have translated them from ancient writings of a Biblical Patriarch (a Hebrew who mysteriously wrote in Egyption), passed them off to his congregation as scripture when he knew good and well that he acquired an Egyptian papyri, had no clue what was on it, and used it as a vehicle to further "authenticate" his postion as prophet. And BTW, it isn't about Joseph per se...it's about the authenticity of the foundational scriptures. It is the difference, Dan, between a reformer and a scam artist. Let me be blunt in my comments here. Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Whether or not the evidences against the BOM convince you, the evidences against the Book of Abraham (Book of Breathings) are insurmountable. The additional scriptures of Brigham Young are the work of an arrogant self elevating man who put the nail in the coffin of Mormonism's Christianity with his exhaltation to Godhood theology. I have no issue with various rites and ordinances of other churchs or even the LDS Church in general. Variations on trinity doctrine aren't the critical sticking point and I could even accept Baptism for the Dead and the pre-existence. Again, as I've said elsewhere, the LDS triple take Mormonism off the path of Christianity into a polytheistic religion that contradicts the teachings of Christ. Mormonism is Mormonism, it is not Christianity. Simply stated: If it CONTRADICTS...it ain't it. -Dan Work with these statements as I've reworded them, please. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 11:51:50
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 11:43:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, In an earlier post I stated that Mormonism is a polytheistic religion and that Christianity is monotheistic. You replied with comments (If I recall correctly) about trinity doctrine. Whereupon I replied to you that I was not pointing to trinity doctrine. You immediately dropped it. Why? Trinity doctrine's aside, Dan, Mormonism IS a polytheistic religion and you have not addressed this in it's entiretly. I'll ask you a question. Do you UNDERSTAND what I mean when I claim that Mormonism is polytheistic? Please explain, if you do. I'd like to know that you understand what I'm saying and why. Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 06:55:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Whereupon I replied to you that I was not pointing to trinity
> doctrineI knew you were not referring to Trinity doctrine when you called Mormons polytheistic. Mormons don't even believe in the Trinity. However, my point is that because of the 3 "gods" referenced in Christianity, that it is not a true monotheistic religion either. Judaism is a better example of monotheism than Christianity. > You immediately dropped it. Why? Because it was irrelevant to the topic, which was to determine which criteria you used to classify Mormonism as non-Christian. > Mormonism IS a polytheistic religion and you have not
> addressed this in it's entiretly I think I know exactly what you mean when you call Mormonism polytheistic. Mormons believe there are many Gods, although they really only worship one, and also believe they have the possibility of becoming Gods themselves. However, Mormonism is certainly not polytheistic in the traditional sense. It is very theoretical, really, and for all intents and purposes, there is only one God that matters to LDS (and it's not Adam, despite what B. Young said ;) ). It's not as if Mormons pray to different gods depending on what they need, or worship more than one God. However, strictly speaking, Mormon doctrine does teach that there are many Gods, which does fall into the category of polytheism. I'm not trying to apologize for Mormonism here, but it's worth making a distinction between strict monotheism (which Biblical Christianity never had) and total polytheism (of which Mormonism is a poor example). -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/24/2003, 22:47:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,Dan made a statement, I referred to it exactly as he had stated it. Your “rephrasing” is the playing of word games. Your reference “the Bible” quite ignores the fact that it is a multiplicity of books, converted many times from language to language. Many translations in English alone are large. Those many translations have caused ranker and frustration within Christianity. One Bible is not another Bible. If they said the same thing, what would be the use of multiple translations not to mention multiple companion references designed to explain what the Bible means? It is a “word game” to speak as you do as if your interpretation were the right interpretation of Christianity. Your point #8 is fundamentally contradicted by every other point in your list of 10. You so narrow and strangle a word “legalistic” in your parenthetical expression as to distort entirely the meaning. 1 & 2 are quite legalistic. Believe, believe -- Implicit in that is don’t ask, don’t question, don’t doubt. And the logical question following that is “or what?”. 5 through 9 “MUST” for every one. And that includes the one I cited which has so much word-spin (word games). While declaring “must not be legalistic” every point is legalistic dogma of doctrine. And Christians, CHRISTIANS do not agree on what IS “the Christ in the Bible.” And Christians, CHRISTIANS do not agree on what IS “the God taught in the Bible.” And Christians, CHRISTIANS do not agree on what IS “the method of salvation taught in the Bible.” And Christians, CHRISTIANS do not agree on what IS “teachings that are consistent with the teachings of Christ.” You seem to ignore what you previously have recognized. This analysis is no defense or support for the Mormon faith. Your efforts are to attack by declaring with absolute assertion your interpretation as the epitome and purity of Christianity. Not only is it intolerant, it is a pontificating “word game” of your own. There is abundant evidence that many books of the Bible are “fabricated.” There is abundant evidence that historically people have not agreed on meanings of various biblical scripts -- hence all the translations and Bible-help studies which virtually every denomination does. And let’s be clear here, Baptists don’t have respect for any other denomination which departs from their fundamentalist interpretations. Your use of “the Bible says...” in other posts and implicit in this post is interpretation. And you have identified yourself as a member of a Southern Baptist congregation. “Legalistic” -- every doctrine and dogma is legalistic. And as for your exclusion of “works,” that too is interpretation. King James Version (which you seem to favor): James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Just what is dead faith worth in your interpretation? “Word games” Your entire post here is aptly described by your own phrase. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sat, May 24, 2003, 22:47:42
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 22:54:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK, The topic here is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. As you can see I have prepared a series of posts at the top. May I suggest that you make an effort to refute them? Your comments regarding "Baptists" is yet another example of your broad and biased brushstrokes. Are all Baptists the same? I have asked you to respond to a series of questions, I do not see your answers. Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 23:09:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK, I'll save you the trouble of locating my questions. Please answer them: JAK,
I was just about to log off when I noticed your post here. I understand and appreciate what you've said here about the history of Christianity. That is all well and good. 1. What does the Biblical Christ say about his nature? Is
he, according to himself, self existent? 2. What does the Biblical Christ say about his diety? 3. What does the Biblical Christ say about his relationship
to God? 4. What does the Biblical Christ say about his relationship
to the Holy Spirit? 5. What does the Biblical Christ say about salvation? 6. What does the Biblical Christ say about legalism vs grace? Victoria (p.s. your failure to respond to my questions is an example of what I said via email (if you read it) where a poster (who fails to respond to my questions) begins to criticize me for not responding to their posts (historical review) even when the post was not directed to me. Further, your comments to Dan stating that you might be "asked" not to post here are an example of YOUR attempt to shift focus from topic on to me. I would much prefer that you stay on topic instead of taking cheap shots at me. Comments such as that are the reason so many threads here become misdirected. While your technique is more subdued, the effect is the same of another who posts rather abusively. The end result or perhaps the end GOAL is the same. My eye is on this ball, I won't allow you to distract me further. Any future posts of yours on these current exchanges that contain personal remarks intended to undermine me, will go without response.
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 23:14:58
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 11:40:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, Let me give you a little example of reliability and credibility. Less than 6 months ago, President Bush and all his spokespeople told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They told the Americans that the United States was directly threatened by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. They told us that the United States must make preemptive war on Iraq for those reasons. Less than 6 months -- with all the resources of international information gathering sources and the United States has still found no evidence of deliverable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq This whole process was hype. One could call it lying. All this in the last six months resulting in the deaths of Americans and thousands of Iraqis. Now you are saying, what does this have to do with the Bible and your (fundamentalist) questions designed for (fundamentalist) answers. RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY We may yet find serious WMD. But with full access to the entire country of Iraq, we, the US led administration which told us there WERE WMD has found none. ...the basis for the killing of those tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens in an effort to get a very few. CREDIBILITY, CREDIBILITY, CREDIBILITY The Bible written thousands of years ago by more people than can be well counted through hundreds of translations, interpretations, and dogma pushers today (such as yourself) does not have credibility or reliability. So your very specific questions about what does the Bible say are irrelevant questions which have irrelevant answers given by people with particular doctrines to push with their own agendas for pushing them. This is response to your questions. Analysis of historical accuracy is critical, CRITICAL before relevancy of questions such as you ask have any use. The Bible does not say anything short of assertions and interpretations made by people who cite words which have come through all those cultural/political translations and re-wordings to the present. Failure to comprehend that is demonstrated by your questions. Error, false assertions, historical inaccuracy, scientific allegation (which real science has refuted with real evidence) is the make up of the Bible. Many on this forum have demonstrated this last point to you repeatedly, and you still say What does the Bible say about.... You simply don’t understand the irrelevancy of your questions. You are trying to use them as a spring-board to prove your own assertions as you declare over and over again those assertions. The faith/works controversy is not resolved by proof-texting (the practice of selectively quoting Bible scripts in an effort to prove that one doctrine is superior or “true” over another doctrine). You do that. Virtually every fundamentalist Christian does that. Christian doctrine in general does that. It asserts believe over discovery and over evidences of discovery. Afterlife speculations are easy because doctrine-makers feel safe. People don’t generally want to die and a plan to guarantee eternal life is an emotional sell. That emotional sell does not alter fact. George Bush sold with his WMD doctrine for reason to preemptively bomb Iraq nightly (mostly) while declaring that the enemy was hiding. He sold the Americans on the doctrine. In Iraq where they HAD electricity, HAD water, etc., they now are without those things in 50% of the bombed cities. And our doctrine of war belief in the absence of real evidence has led to what will be a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, unless we just declare “I’m DONE” and exit. (Of course we are already tapped into the oil. We didn’t get the WMD, but we are getting the oil.) The point is that believing that for which there is no evidence is wrong -- morally and ethically wrong. Belief in some religious doctrine (yours or anyone else’s) is wrong intellectually/morally/ethically. Islamic fundamentalism teaches that one should give up his own life for his God and his country -- terrorist bombers. That is religious commitment. You and I both would agree THAT is wrong. But it is the principle that is WRONG. Belief without evidence of support for that belief leads to wrong conclusions, wrong actions, wrong morality and wrong ethics. The larger view is of far greater importance than you perceive from your attempts to prove what is essentially paltry assertion. None of the doctrines about eternal life, virgins for suicide bombers after death, heaven for Christians after death have any basis in fact, Victoria. Belief does not alter fact. The doctrine that WMD in Iraq threatening the US did not make it fact. The religious doctrines which you defend (belief without fact or in spite of fact) do not alter FACT. Translated to your religious box, belief about religion, anything to do with religion does not alter one iota what IS. Specifically, believing in an afterlife does not make one. Christian doctrines about an afterlife are of no more merit than Muslim doctrines.
They are all speculations. Several years ago, there were some groups who believed the world was coming to an end on a particular day. They went into caves, they read the Bible. They were Christians (some would have called them a Christian cult because of size). But they were Christians reading the same Bible you read who concluded the world would end by God’s hand (anthropomorphism). They believed. Their belief did not alter the movement of the sun, the planets, the solar system and the billions of suns contained in this known universe, Victoria. None of their beliefs were relevant. So when you get all excited about proving with selected Bible scripts, keep in mind that belief contrary to fact is irrelevant. In may respects, it is worse than irrelevant. It causes people to behave irrationally -- such as those who went into caves (presumably to save themselves from God’s termination of the earth). Some Christians avoid medical treatment. They pray instead. And they read and quote the same Bible that you read and quote to prove. What the Bible says as you like to indoctrinate, is irrelevant in so far as it is contrary to fact/science. And the Bible “says” what the script-quoters want it to say. If you understand that religion is a result of cultural/social/political evolution as you stated you did in a previous post to me, you cannot be serious about trying to make something out of selected Bible scripts as if you were dealing with anything remotely connected with reality. It simply would not be possible.
You would reject the Islamic religion as invalid -- because YOU were raised and/or attached to some form of Christianity. You believe Islam is wrong. You would use the Bible in an attempt to PROVE that Islam is wrong. You would substitute one set of assertions (yours) for another set of assertions (theirs) in assailing Islam. Only now you are focused on Mormon beliefs (your passion). This is a response to your questions. It deals with some of the issues which must precede the questions you use in an attempt to prove your version of Christianity is superior/right/true. Belief is irrelevant to fact in so far as it ignores fact, misrepresents fact, and substitutes doctrine for discovery. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, May 25, 2003, 11:44:40
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 01:07:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria Stated:
The topic here is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. As you can see I have prepared a series of posts at the top. May I suggest that you make an effort to refute them? Your comments regarding "Baptists" is yet another example of your broad and biased brushstrokes. Are all Baptists the same? I have asked you to respond to a series of questions, I do not see your answers. Let’s turn that question in paragraph #2 on Mormons. Are all Mormons the same? Answer: Probably not -- no more than all Baptists are the same. If not and when not, there is difference of interpretation or acceptance of doctrine. That answer likely applies to Baptists as well. Actually, I have addressed issues raised by your questions various ways and places on this forum. You don’t seem to recognize that addressing issues can be done by various means. One is analysis of questions themselves. You ask or rather demand a yes/no answer for an issue which cannot be answered that way. I have answered your question by citing and documenting various ways the historical development of religions within cultures. Your view is to small, too narrow, too confined by your own particular existence in time on this little planet. Now mine is as well. But, consider this: Many tens of thousands of years ago as the human species was evolving there was savagery. That was followed by barbaric behaviors. That was followed by primitive cultures. Within those primitive cultures came early myths -- later religions. Are you able to comprehend that evolution most briefly sketched? Leaping over thousands of years at a time, one religion which evolved within culture was Christianity -- one of many. That is every bit as important perhaps even more important than the fact that Christianity survived at all. Does the Mormon church “use” the Bible? Answer: Yes Does the Mormon church rely upon the Bible as a if not the principle collection of books for its religious beliefs. Answer: Yes. This is where you jump in and insist that because the Mormon doctrines are unlike your own, it is not Christian. “No” you say, because ... When historically did the Mormon beginnings occur? Out of what cultural background did the earliest Mormon views emerge? Now keep in mind the great world religions at the time (1850 C.E.) Where did the founders of the Mormon church live? What was the dominant religion just prior to the formation of an earliest Mormon group? Was it Islam? Was it Hindu? Was it Buddhist? How important is the Koran to Mormons? These are much larger questions and points of historical focus than the questions you raise. What is more, we have an historical record for the questions which I posed here. Questions phrased as you phrase questions are the wrong questions. Moreover, the answers are subjective and a matter of interpretation. What does the Bible say about...” anything is open to interpretation. Why do I say that? Christians do not agree on “what the Bible says.” Virtually everything within the 66 books is a matter of interpretation. One reason that is the case is because of inherent contractions when words from one script are compared with words from another script. Another reason is that the words lack clarity. That is exactly the reason for all the translations and interpretations made by the thousands of groups which are regarded by objective appraisal as Christian. “Objective appraisal” That means an evaluation by individuals sufficiently well-educated and scholarly to be relatively free of bias and emotional commitment to doctrine which prevents them from being able to offer “objective appraisal.” Those people, Victoria, would count Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as part of the whole of Christianity. Numerically, Mormons are not counted as a major world religion all by themselves. They do not qualify as a major world religion. Now you stated:
:“The topic here is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity.” That is really not the topic or the issue. Many (including you) attempt a linking verb where it does not apply. Christianity is the major world religion of which the Mormon church is but one faction. While some Mormons or perhaps the Mormon hierarchy would like to see itself as fully separate form, divorced from all other religions, such is not the case. In your insistence that “Mormonism is not Christian,” you are playing with a negative assertion. To say Mormonism is Mormonism, is to say nothing. Soap is soap. Water is water. Grass is grass is circular and says nothing. It requires MORE. Why are you confident that “Mormon” is an “ism”? Maybe so, but I don’t know what you mean by that or what the significance of it is. I have addressed your questions, but you likely don’t know it. You are so intent on framing questions in the vernacular of fundamentalist dogma that you seem unable to see outside that box. Contrary to your perceptions, the Bible does not say. That “in the box” thinking makes it very difficult for you to develop much objectivity about the collection of quite ancient to somewhat less ancient stories. Those stories, assertions, doctrines (or assumed doctrines) are unreliable, often irrational, frequently irrelevant, and politically perpetuated. If the books of the Bible were clear, readily understandable, and consistent, Christianity would not be a highly contentious, easily threatened, doctrine in substitution for discovery. What people think the Bible says varies as verified by the many denominations which use it to perpetuate varied doctrines. Now if you really and truly recognize the fact of cultural/religious evolution, none of the questions which you pose would be of much importance. You said it, but I doubt you can grasp it. Nevertheless, it was a step. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, May 25, 2003, 01:11:05
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 02:16:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK: Victoria Stated: The topic here is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. As you can see I have prepared a series of posts at the top. May I suggest that you make an effort to refute them?
Your comments regarding "Baptists" is yet another example of your broad and biased brushstrokes. Are all Baptists the same? I have asked you to respond to a series of questions, I do not see your answers. Let’s turn that question in paragraph #2 on Mormons. Are all Mormons the same? Answer: Probably not -- no more than all Baptists are the same. If not and when not, there is difference of interpretation or acceptance of doctrine. That answer likely applies to Baptists as well. VICKI: You permit the generalizations of denominations when it suits you, JAK. We are discussing the theology of Mormonism vs Christianity in order to discern whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. It is not. JAK: Actually, I have addressed issues raised by your questions various ways and places on this forum. You don’t seem to recognize that addressing issues can be done by various means. One is analysis of questions themselves. VICKI: I recognize that you are avoiding answering my questions as they are put to you here. I have asked you at least twice to answer them here. You are unwilling to meet that request. If you remain unwilling to meet my request, please don't expect me to meet yours. JAK: You ask or rather demand a yes/no answer for an issue which cannot be answered that way. I have answered your question by citing and documenting various ways the historical development of religions within cultures. VICKI: I ask you to answer my questions. The issue is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. I have further asked you what the Bible states about various issues. You have not answered me. JAK: Your view is to small, too narrow, too confined by your own particular existence in time on this little planet. Now mine is as well. But, consider this: VICKI: Rather than characterize my "view", why don't you answer the questions I raised to you. You are free to refute any of the claims I've made on the above thread regarding the Christianity of Mormonism. JAK: Many tens of thousands of years ago as the human species was evolving there was savagery. That was followed by barbaric behaviors. That was followed by primitive cultures. Within those primitive cultures came early myths -- later religions. Are you able to comprehend that evolution most briefly sketched? Leaping over thousands of years at a time, one religion which evolved within culture was Christianity -- one of many. That is every bit as important perhaps even more important than the fact that Christianity survived at all. VICKI: Please answer the questions I posted to you. You are diverting for your own purposes. My questions were on topic, your answers are not. JAK: Does the Mormon church “use” the Bible? Answer: Yes Does the Mormon church rely upon the Bible as a if not the principle collection of books for its religious beliefs. Answer: Yes. VICKI: The Mormon church does not "rely" upon the Bible as the principle of its collection of scripture. The Mormon church via the teachings of Joseph Smith, CONTRADICTS the Bible, further...the teachings of Brigham Young CONTRADICT both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. JAK: This is where you jump in and insist that because the Mormon doctrines are unlike your own, it is not Christian. “No” you say, because ... VICKI: "My own" doctrines are irrelevant here. The doctrines of Mormonism are not "unlike" the doctrines of Christianity as stated in the Bible. They fully CONTRADICT them. JAK: When historically did the Mormon beginnings occur? Out of what cultural background did the earliest Mormon views emerge? Now keep in mind the great world religions at the time (1850 C.E.) Where did the founders of the Mormon church live? What was the dominant religion just prior to the formation of an earliest Mormon group? Was it Islam? Was it Hindu? Was it Buddhist? How important is the Koran to Mormons? These are much larger questions and points of historical focus than the questions you raise. What is more, we have an historical record for the questions which I posed here. VICKI: These are much larger questions that have nothing to do with the questions I asked you. It is misdirection of the thread for the purpose of avoiding answering my questions as I posed them to you. I have, in the past, and more recently taken your posts and replied to them point by point. I expect you to do the same in response to me. JAK: Questions phrased as you phrase questions are the wrong questions. Moreover, the answers are subjective and a matter of interpretation. VICKI: I asked you point blank questions about what the Bible says about various issues. You have no answers. What is YOUR interpretation of what the Bible says regarding the issues I raised? JAK: What does the Bible say about...” anything is open to interpretation. Why do I say that? Christians do not agree on “what the Bible says.” Virtually everything within the 66 books is a matter of interpretation. VICKI: Yes, I am asking for YOUR interpretation. JAK: One reason that is the case is because of inherent contractions when words from one script are compared with words from another script. VICKI: If you feel that is so, I invite you to use the oldest translation you can find to answer my questions. JAK: Another reason is that the words lack clarity. That is exactly the reason for all the translations and interpretations made by the thousands of groups which are regarded by objective appraisal as Christian. VICKI: There is no lack of clarity in the posts I made on the new thread where I contrasted Mormonism with Christianity. You are free to offer your own interpretation if you feel it will provide refutation of my position. JAK: “Objective appraisal” That means an evaluation by individuals sufficiently well-educated and scholarly to be relatively free of bias and emotional commitment to doctrine which prevents them from being able to offer “objective appraisal.” VICKI: I think you meet that criteria quite nicely. I welcome your objective appraisal of my positions as stated in the thread I created where I contrast Mormonism with Christianity. JAK: Those people, Victoria, would count Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as part of the whole of Christianity. Numerically, Mormons are not counted as a major world religion all by themselves. They do not qualify as a major world religion. VICKI: You divert to membership numbers now. Please answer my questions. If you would like to refute anything I stated to Dan in the new thread I posted where I contrasted Mormonism with Christianity, please do. JAK: Now you stated: :“The topic here is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity.” That is really not the topic or the issue. Many (including you) attempt a linking verb where it does not apply. Christianity is the major world religion of which the Mormon church is but one faction. While some Mormons or perhaps the Mormon hierarchy would like to see itself as fully separate form, divorced from all other religions, such is not the case. VICKI: The topic here is just as I stated. Is Mormonism Christianity. If you take time to read Dan's reply to me above, you will see that he preferred to discuss theology and not individuals. Contrary to what you have stated about the Mormon hierarchy, JAK, the Mormon hierarchy would VERY MUCH like to see itself as an INCLUSION of Christianity. Fer's post below supports that. JAK: In your insistence that “Mormonism is not Christian,” you are playing with a negative assertion. To say Mormonism is Mormonism, is to say nothing. Soap is soap. Water is water. Grass is grass is circular and says nothing. It requires MORE. VICKI: It requires nothing more than the evidences I supplied in the new thread I created for Dan above. Feel free to refute them as well as my conclusion that Mormonism is not Christianity. JAK: Why are you confident that “Mormon” is an “ism”? Maybe so, but I don’t know what you mean by that or what the significance of it is. I have addressed your questions, but you likely don’t know it. You are so intent on framing questions in the vernacular of fundamentalist dogma that you seem unable to see outside that box. VICKI: You are intent on not answering my questions. I will not allow you to distract me. Instead of commenting on how I frame my questions, why don't you simply answer them directly as you expect of me? JAK: Contrary to your perceptions, the Bible does not say. That “in the box” thinking makes it very difficult for you to develop much objectivity about the collection of quite ancient to somewhat less ancient stories. Those stories, assertions, doctrines (or assumed doctrines) are unreliable, often irrational, frequently irrelevant, and politically perpetuated. VICKI: It is very difficult for you to straightforwardly answer my questions. JAK: If the books of the Bible were clear, readily understandable, and consistent, Christianity would not be a highly contentious, easily threatened, doctrine in substitution for discovery. VICKI: I suspect you could read them and comprehend what they say. I didn't ask you to characterize Christianity, I asked you to answer my questions regarding Bible statements on cetain issues. The statements are in the Bible, you know the Bible, you have read the Bible, you are able to "characterize" the Bible yet are unable to articulate what it states on the issues I raised, please answer my questions. JAK:What people think the Bible says varies as verified by the many denominations which use it to perpetuate varied doctrines. VICKI: I agree with you. I am asking you to tell me what you think it says on the issues I raised in my questions. Further, I have posted a series of topical posts regarding the fundamental CONTRADICTORY teachings of Mormonism vs Christianity. I welcome your refutation of the material I presented there. JAK: Now if you really and truly recognize the fact of cultural/religious evolution, none of the questions which you pose would be of much importance. You said it, but I doubt you can grasp it. Nevertheless, it was a step. JAK VICKI: The topic of this thread isn't "cultural/religious evolution" JAK, the topic of this thread is "Is Mormonism Christianity". Dan and I both have agreed to that topic. I grasp full well that you are intentionally attempting to misdirect this thread and shift focus on to other issues beyond the topic of this thread. Please answer my questions in the order they are given to you. As I stated earlier, when I reply to your lengthy posts point by point, I expect you to do the same in response to me. I meant what I said about not allowing you to divert my attention, JAK. What you are doing here, albeit subdued, is exactly what the other poster does abusively. I will not reply to you further on this thread until you have answered my questions forthrightly. You are most free to include scripture references from any translation of the Bible that you prefer. I will, before this long weekend is done, reply to your posts on the thread below as I said I would. Please don't expect from me that which you are unwilling to do yourself. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 02:21:24
|
Posted by: JAK ®
06/01/2003, 22:34:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
Taking your final two paragraphs, I’ll answer your points again. My previous responses have not been refuted by your comments.VICKI: The topic of this thread isn't "cultural/religious evolution" JAK, the topic of this thread is "Is Mormonism Christianity". JAK:
Any denominational emergence of or from previous Christian groups is precisely cultural/religious evolution, Victoria. A major part of your problem here is that you fail to recognize that the issue is inherently a part of cultural/religious evolution. Vicki:
Dan and I both have agreed to that topic. I grasp full well that you are intentionally attempting to misdirect this thread and shift focus on to other issues beyond the topic of this thread. JAK:
You don’t seem to recognize that your framing of a question is the misdirection. For example: Is Greek Orthodox Christian? Of course it is, but you would not recognize much in the Greek Orthodox Church as post Protestant Reformation Christian. When earlier divisions occurred in Christianity, such divisions were not regarded as Christian by the previously established orthodoxy. And then, after a newer group developed a history...time from its beginning and increased converts or members, it gained recognition. It became the “new” orthodoxy. Vicki:
Please answer my questions in the order they are given to you. As I stated earlier, when I reply to your lengthy posts point by point, I expect you to do the same in response to me. JAK:
Because you don’t like the responses does not mean that your questions were not answered. Vicki:
I meant what I said about not allowing you to divert my attention, JAK. What you are doing here, albeit subdued, is exactly what the other poster does abusively. I will not reply to you further on this thread until you have answered my questions forthrightly. JAK:
I have answered your questions and continue to address the issues.Christianity is the world religion. With a title like “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” in the wake of the previous history of Christianity, that group is not, NOT a new religion. Many Christian groups have declared that other Christian groups are not Christian. It is a method of denying the validity of the beliefs of another group. Of course none of the many Christian groups have validity in the sense that one is right and all the others or some of the others are wrong. Yet your question set-up is an attempt to do just what others do. It is an attempt at exclusion for a group with which you disagree. A better way to consider the issue you raise (not the loaded question) might be how the vast majority of Mormons regard themselves. We could ask is the KKK Christian? Most members of the KKK would regard themselves as Christian. Most white supremacists in America would regard themselves as Christian. They worship God, they use the Bible, they selectively quote the Bible. Those who bomb abortion clinics and are “pro-life” and are anti-choice are some kind of Christian. Let’s assume that you, Vicki, do not agree that bombing abortion clinics or preventing “choice” by law is Christian. Would you declare such groups which do those things not Christian? If you would declare them “not Christian,” what are you doing? You are simply declaring that groups which believe differently than you yet who use the Bible you use are not Christian. Vicki:
You are most free to include scripture references from any translation of the Bible that you prefer. I will, before this long weekend is done, reply to your posts on the thread below as I said I would. Please don't expect from me that which you are unwilling to do yourself. JAK:
In short, Christianity is sufficiently broad today that virtually any group which regards itself as Christian IS some form of Christian. That YOU disagree with their notions or doctrines does not make them “not Christian.” That is at the central core of the problem with your assertion. You would quote the scripts YOU like from the Bible as “proof” or even evidence that Mormons are not Christians -- or any other group which you might wish to declare “not Christian.” But your judgment is merely an individual’s opinion. The fact that others of your persuasion agree with you does not give much strength to your position. Now if you could somehow document that a very large percentage of all objective scholarship on world religions agrees with you, that would be something on which to build your assertion. My contention is that real scholarship on world religions would not classify “Mormon” a separate distinct world religion. I have offered evidence in past posts which support that contention. When you assert “Mormonism is not Christian,” you do not cite scholars in religious studies which agree with that position. Instead, you quote parts of the Bible YOURSELF and argue your quotes prove that your assertion is correct. Such efforts are weak and lack the kind of broad support to lend validity to your position. Someone else cited various people including former President Jimmy Carter as inclusive of Mormons in Christianity. While Carter is not a religious authority, there many authorities who agree with that position. Any group which has done a count of all Christians in the world includes Mormons in that count of Christians. If you have seen a scholarly report breaking down numbers of people in world religions, what have you seen? Have you seen a list of world religions which offers “Mormon” as one of the world religions separate from Christianity? That is where the support for your assertion must come. It cannot come from you as a single person or from a group of Southern Baptists who want to exclude the Mormon Church from other Christian churches. It cannot come from proof-texting with scripts out of the Bible either.
Since there is failed agreement on interpretation of Bible scripts, that is a futile course of pursuit for exclusion. In other words, to establish the Mormon beliefs as non-Christian, some large consensus is required and that consensus must be from as objective a source as can be found. For example, when Methodists say “Catholics aren’t Christian,” that is a biased source with its own doctrines. It is attempting to exclude a group from Christian with OTHER doctrines of its own. I mention this particular group merely because I know some fundamentalist Methodists who say exactly that -- “Catholics are not Christian.” That conclusion is not supported by scholarly views of Christianity. So until you are able to produce evidence from objective scholarship that “Mormon” is a separate world religion from Christianity, your assertion is without merit. Here is a website which also answers your question.
Christian Faith Groups.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Jun 01, 2003, 23:25:35
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 07:28:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Simply stated: If it CONTRADICTS...it ain't it.Can we add this to the list, then? Any contradiction of Biblical Christianity whatsoever disqualifies that religion as non-Christian? -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 19:59:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, Items 5 through 10 all contain the word “must.” If I were a liberal Christian, I would ask some questions about your 10 points. What number of points must “a Christian” subscribe to in order to qualify as “a Christian”? Would 9 out of 10 be acceptable? Are some points in the litmus test more important than others? If so, which ones? and why? I have not seen more legalism for Christianity than you issue on your litmus test for “a Christian.” Now I’ll ask you about “must believe.” Just what does that mean? What degree of doubt for a “believer” is permissible for one to still be counted as “a Christian”? Most Christians have some doubt. How do you measure doubt as you determine who IS and who IS NOT “Christian”? Until you give precise, definitive answers to questions like these, you are dead in the water with this fundamentalism. You are dead in the water anyway because you cannot respond to my questions in a precise way without so much “legalism” that a virtual thesis would be required from you. Fundamentalism in Christianity is the doctrine of exclusion. So you need to get busy defining level of belief required, level of doubt permitted, and your own personal doctrine of doctrines on “Christianity.” You state:
“Variations on trinity doctrine aren't the critical sticking point...” That is Christianity according to Victoria. The “trinity” is a critical doctrine of Christianity. Some Christians regard it as the most critical or one of the most critical. And for you in your own doctrine of Christianity, you don’t regard it as “critical.” You make it up as you go, Victoria, and you declare it “Christianity.” Then you continue to state: “I could even accept Baptism for the Dead and the pre-existence.” Really!! Does that make it a “Christian Doctrine”? Victoria could accept as “Christian.” All Christians over the world will be most interested to know what Victoria could accept. You state: “Mormonism is Mormonism...” Do you know what a circular definition is, Victoria? That is a circular definition. Then you state: “it is not Christianity.” So, you leave us with a circular definition that is a definition which goes no where, and an assertion of what “Mormonism” is not. So far you have ignored the historical development of Christianity. You have ignored Martin Luther, without whom neither the Southern Baptist OR the Mormon church would have evolved as they did. ....And you say you don’t know much about Martin Luther. Astounding! As for rewording other people’s posts, you are not good at it. Let other people’s posts stand as they are and respond to them. The what you are saying routine only distorts and misstates what, in fact, others have said. We can all read the posts in their entirety. A direct quote as a method of developing a response is a useful technique. Attempting to restate in your words results in distortion. Now I will watch for response on your 10-point litmus test. Please give us particulars with as much specificity as you can! JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, May 25, 2003, 20:01:49
|
Posted by: amy ®
05/24/2003, 13:57:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
1. No mormons are not Christians.2. To be a christian is to believe in the Christ of the bible. 3. Mormons fail to meet this definition because the Christ they believe in simply does not exist. Their Christ was created as the first spirit child of god and his wife. The Christ in the bible is God in the flesh. 4. Thats the problem with denominations. There are hundreds of them. When the church that Christ talked about inthe bible was not a building but rather all the people who believe in Christ, and what he did for them. Amy
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/24/2003, 14:15:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan,The word "christian" is obviously a very general term, and that's why it's a big deal. It has nothing to do with the bible really, it's not emphasized at all there (even though it wouldn't matter if it was). It's a general term associated by a large percentage of the earths population with what is right. If all of a sudden, everyone but evangelicals dropped the word "christian" and used something else; reborns would soon agree with me that it's not an interesting question at all, at least no more interesting then asking, "Are mormons evangelical fundamentalists"? Obviously the answer is "no", as the answer to the question you ask is in fact "no"; in the usual sense it's being asked, but that sense isn't understood by the rest of the world and the question only draws it's power by equivocating or playing on the general usage. It seems the Church of Jesus Christ is playing the same game too now. Isn't it fun to avoid saying what you really mean? Your question should really be, "Are members of the Church of Jesus Christ Christians"? Or turn the tables, "Are Christians members of the Church of Jesus Christ"? Let's see how confusing we can make it to merely say, "We are right, you are wrong". Consider how ultra right-wing survivalists or racists talk. They do the same thing in their speech and publications. It's not about belonging to this or that group which holds they have the correct interpretation of the constitution; it's about being an American. The opposition, the "liberals" are all anti-American. You wouldn't want to either be or associate with anti-Americans now would you? Did you ever read the book, "The Star bellied Sneetches" by Dr. Suess? If everyone but the reborns and Mormons dropped the term "christian" as "the" word to describe their general religious heritage and values reserving "Christian" to reference only evangelicals OR mormons; how long do you think it would be before both groups would be standing in line at the "stars off" machine?
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 07:00:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey, Fer:This was mostly meant to be answered by Christians who say "Mormons aren't Christians." It's an assertion I don't think they have much basis for, except that Mormons fail to agree with them on several points--something Mormons would heartily agree to. Eventually I will get to the point here... -Dan
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 17:32:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
10). Founder of religion must not have prepared writings, claimed to have translated them from ancient writings of a Biblical Patriarch (a Hebrew who mysteriously wrote in Egyption), passed them off to his congregation as scripture when he knew good and well that he acquired an Egyptian papyri, had no clue what was on it, and used it as a vehicle to further "authenticate" his postion as prophet. And BTW, it isn't about Joseph per se...it's about the authenticity of the foundational scriptures. It is the difference, Dan, between a reformer and a scam artist.Jeez, Vicki, this is an very specific requirement for a church to be considered Christian. Did this requirement exist before Mormonism? Or, was this requirement invented to deal with something that you don't like about Mormonism? I'm going to get to the point here, finally. On this thread you have demonstrated a bias against Mormonism. In my quest to find out why you disqualify Mormonism as Christian, you have failed to provide a simple definition of Christianity. It seems you have trouble defining Christianity in a way that excludes Mormonism. When pushed on your definition, you honed it, but it became increasingly clear that the tool you honed it with was Mormonism itself. In other words, rather than defining what *is* Christian, you defined what *is not* Christian--and the source of your definition was Mormonism itself. Point (10) that you have listed is incredibly specific to Mormonism--so much so, that it is a bit ridiculous. You might as well add to your requirements of Christianity that the church "not be Mormon." After providing all these requirements of what it takes to be (or not be) a Christian church, it begs the question, "Who is entitled to define Christianity or the term 'Christian'"? When a group emerges and gives themselves a title (or it is given to them) they can define what it means to be in their group. The problem with Christianity is that it is far too diverse for there to be a single authority on the definition. Some who call themselves Christian (like you) want to narrow the definition to only include what they are comfortable with. The fact is, there *is* no single set of "Christian" beliefs, and you know this very well. So, to exclude Mormonism from the group, "Christianity," you have to pick and choose beliefs that all "Christians" can agree on in order to disqualify Mormonism. When you make a rule like no. 10, you really make it clear what you are doing. You have already disqualified Mormonism, not based on any definition of Christianity, but based on Mormonism itself. I believe you are either uncomfortable with the ideas espoused by Mormonism, its history, or its founders. It doesn't matter, though. No. 10 isn't a requirement of being Christian, it's a reason *you* (and many others, including myself) are uncomfortable with Mormonism. But you haven't demonstrated how this makes Mormonism non-Christian. m-w.com defines a "Christian" as follows: 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ Remarkably simple, this definition obviously includes Mormonism and Mormons. Interestingly, it doesn't require the "Christian" to be correct about his/her beliefs, or fail to do certain "taboo" things which would disqualify him/her. The question is why you and others feel the need to extend this simple definition to lock certain groups out. Why couldn't it be that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, just not the form that you agree with? Mormons aren't asking you to accept their belief system--indeed, they expect you to reject it. If you were to say, "Mormonism isn't the kind of Christianity I believe in" you would have a leg to stand on. But you aren't saying this; you are disqualifying the religion as being Christian at all. If you were to say, "Mormonism isn't Christianity in the traditional sense," Mormons would probably not disagree--they know their version is different, and they are proud of it! But to say Mormonism isn't Christianity at all is to take it one step further. Essentially, you are saying, "If you aren't Christian in the way that I am, then you aren't Christian at all." Well, that is very convenient for you, but the fact remains, the definition of Christianity includes all sects which profess to follow Christ, regardless of how much those sects dislike being lumped together. No one is claiming Mormonism is the same brand of Christianity practiced by all the other churches, but it is wise to remember that all those other churches have distinct brands as well. Mormonism may be one of the most different, or easiest to criticize, but this doesn't disqualify it automatically. Unless you can demonstrate a commonly held definition of Christianity which excludes Mormonism, your claim that Mormonism is not Christian fails. Asserting your beliefs that Mormonism fails to agree with as part of the definition of Christianity doesn't make your claim any stronger--it just shows your unwillingness to accept diversity within the Christian belief system. Listing specific Mormon problems as part of what must *not* be included in a Christian religion is no better--it just demonstrates your insistence that Mormonism not be included in Christianity. The reason no textbook definition of Christianity contains all the specifics you've mentioned is because they vary from church to church. The specifics don't matter--the commonality does. The commonality in the case of Christians is their goal of following Christ. Therefore, to disqualify Mormonism, you have to show that they don't truly want or try to follow Christ. The problem is that they do want to follow Christ--they just have a very different idea of how to do it, and different beliefs on what it means to follow Christ. Christianity isn't a term that refers to one group with static beliefs: it is a term that encompasses many groups with many differing beliefs. Unfortunately for those who want to restrict the term, its meaning has already become too broad to eliminate religions such as Mormonism. Any definition which makes such specifics as you have given is simply contrived after the fact to disqualify specific organizations. If Christianity were a unified body, they could "vote out" Mormonism, the rules would change, and from that day on, Christian would mean (in part) "not Mormon." But Christianity is NOT a unified body, so this is impossible. "Christian" is simply a classification now, which by necessity must include all religions with the common element of "Christ". I challenge you to find a published, credible definition of Christianity which disqualifies Mormonism. I'm not speaking of a list of problems with Mormonism, I'm referring to a definition that preferably predates Mormonism which has a specific requirement that Mormonism fails to meet. It's worth noting that definitions are usually used to describe, not prescribe. Until then you are simply demonstrating what we knew all along: Mormonism doesn't agree with your belief system. -Dan (edited for spelling)
Modified by nofaith at Mon, May 26, 2003, 01:48:07
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 18:33:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
To lay out the beliefs of 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and the Mormon church against the Bible scripts...just like I did for you above. And tell me which is congruent and which contradicts. Rites, ordinances and such, DO differ from church to church however, when you are ready to lay out the information I just requested you will be able to comment based on evidence and not generalized error-bound assumptions. When you resort to legalism Dan, it tells me that you are unwilling to objectively evaluate the evidence or the issue on the table and inspite of Craig's cyber backslap ( please feel free to huddle together Craig) it doesn't serve your position it infact finds you WITHOUT POSITION on whether or not Mormonism is Christianity.Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 18:46:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
But I will do what you ask in time.> When you resort to legalism Dan, it tells me that you are
> unwilling to objectively evaluate the evidence or the issue on
> the table I have no idea what you're talking about. > when you are ready to lay out the information I just requested
> you will be able to comment based on evidence and not
> generalized error-bound assumptions Such as...? By the way, my challenge still stands. In my opinion, every single notable "Christian" religion contradicts the Bible in some way. Contradictions don't mean a religion can't be classified as Christian, IMO. -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 22:41:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,The assertions made by you make YOU the one challenged. You are obviously trying to shift the topic and the focus. While it would certainly be possible (through research) to set forth specific beliefs of the groups you mention, it would also be quite irrelevant to the assertion which you make Mormon beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Your direct statement “Mormonism is not Christian” in your many posts seems merely to condemn Mormon beliefs. You have never answered what you intend by the word “Mormonism” that I have seen. You use the word and assume something. It appears that you assume Mormon beliefs. If that is not what you mean, what is it? Since you admitted to knowing little of Martin Luther, you admit to a serious lack of knowledge about the history and aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. The doctrine which you assert is a direct result of the fracturing of Christianity following the 1500s. The Mormon beliefs were not articulated before the mid 1800s. Every different Protestant group since the 1500s contradicted some previously revered Christian doctrine. That is exactly why the groups formed and/or separated themselves from some other Christian group. How much do you know about what the Amish denominations believe (who read the same Bible as you do)? I mentioned the Shakers to Dan. Do you know what they believed? They are/were Christians reading the same Bible as do you. How much do you know about what the Mennonites believe? They are Christians reading the same Bible as do you. The fact that none of the above mentioned believe what you believe does not equal not Christian. You are missing the point in the discussion here by attempting to impose only a narrow doctrine driven notion of Christian. Your Christian box is too small. Your lack of familiarity with the history of Christianity is a reason for that small box. You have made no refutation nor can you that your 10-point litmus test for Christian is entirely “legalistic.” You either don’t know what that term means or you are deliberately distorting it to mean only something very narrow about faith/works. If you have responded to my comment on that legalistic point of yours, I have not seen it -- but I haven’t looked. I gave you scripts from the Bible on that point. Christians do not agree on doctrines. That does not make then non-Christian.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, May 25, 2003, 22:43:51
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/25/2003, 23:12:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
It was a diversionary tactic, especially from the main charge. Especially to the crucial point: On this thread you have demonstrated a bias against Mormonism. In my quest to find out why you disqualify Mormonism as Christian, you have failed to provide a simple definition of Christianity. It seems you have trouble defining Christianity in a way that excludes Mormonism. When pushed on your definition, you honed it, but it became increasingly clear that the tool you honed it with was Mormonism itself. In other words, rather than defining was *is* Christian, you defined what *is not* Christian--and the source of your definition was Mormonism itself. Point (10) that you have listed is incredibly specific to Mormonism--so much so, that it is a bit ridiculous. You might as well add to your requirements of Christianity that the church "not be Mormon." [Underlines mine] I myself rubbed my eyes when you came up with this tenth point. I wouldn't, e.g., try it on ZLMB, where informed Mormons would not only seize precisely on Dan's point, but also take your argument as one more reason to view "Mormons aren't Christians" folk as ill-informed and arguing from their prejudices against the Church.
Modified by Cal at Sun, May 25, 2003, 23:13:07
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 23:58:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, The summarized "definitions" are Dan's, not mine. Dan didn't "seize" anything, he orchestrated it and for which purpose I offered myself as a willing participant and infact invited him to create the thread. Please read this thread in it's entirety and you will see how he developed these "definitions". Rub your eyes all you like Cal, and when you're done...please review the thread. You might be interested in responding to the series of posts I placed in a separate thread mainly for Dan. You are most welcome to refute the information I provided there. "I'll informed folk arguing prejudices?" You need to read the entire thread, Cal, as well as my posts and replies to Dan on the above thead "Mormonism=Christian Cult" before you jump to conclusions. You owe me an apology, sir. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 23:59:40
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 00:02:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here it is: Hello Sarah Sue,
Your opening post below appears to be a lead in for a discussion on the issue of whether or not Mormons are Christians. Let's be real, we both know it is. Here's the open door that you're looking for: 1. Are Mormon's Christian? If not, why not?
2. Is Mormonism Christianity? If not, why not?
3. Do you make any distinction in your thinking between the religious doctrine of the LDS and the Saints themselves, that allows for the possibility that they may have the same kind of relationship with Christ that you do?
4. Are you a Southern Baptist?
I will respond to your comments as they come in, it might not be right away. And BTW, welcome to our Forum! Victoria To which Dan replied: Hey, Vicki:
I'd like to see a thread with question 1, as well as the following questions: 2. What defines a Christian?
3. How do Mormons fail to meet this definition?
4. Considering the wide range of beliefs in "Christian" churches, shouldn't the def. be fairly broad? As you know, I'm an ex-mormon, and I can definitely appreciate the recent shift towards emphasizing Christ as the center of the Church (much of it before I left the Church). In spite of the shift, not much was changed doctrinally--it was simply the emphasis that changed. I doubt many Mormons would claim much in common with most other Christian Churches, but they still feel the right to use the Christian title--after all, they do consider Christ their Lord and Savior. I think you can still consider someone a Christian without considering their beliefs accurate. You might call them a deceived Christian or a bad Christian, but simply believing something different than a Christian doesn't seem to be enough to disqualify them, IMO. -Dan
And to which I replied: Start one and I'll reply. Then...as the discussion I said that I thought that Mormon's could be Christians but that Mormonism was not Christianity. Dan and I both agreed to keep it theology based. Then, this thread began with the questions on definitions. Dan questioned me and summarized the post you read. I then, isolated the theology issues in the thread near the top of the front page. Please Cal, don't jump on the band wagon unless you know where it originated and where it's been. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 00:06:35
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 00:13:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Q3. How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition?A2. I'll begin with these examples: Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is MONOTHEISTIC. Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different than the Christ described in the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that the God of the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a different method of salvation than that described in the Bible. Mormonism is a legalistic religion. The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the teachings of Christ. At least one of the additional scriptures contained in Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what else did he lie about? Victoria Now, you tell me, Cal. Was his list of definitions a fair representation of the way in which it was delivered to him or did he frame it to suit his purposes? I have to tell you outright that it annoys the living hell out of me when people make comments who haven't bothered to READ and REVIEW the thread. You can decide whether or not you jumped to conclusions and whether or not an apology is due me. Your call. Before you call, "view all" the threads, Cal. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 00:17:34
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 01:02:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
How in the world does this help you? I've already read this post ("Three Questions"), and, having also read your ten-point list, I don't see how reciting it helps you. It only shows how you'd already dug yourself deep a few days ago. At any rate, how does it help you avoid the charge that point ten confirms your way of defining the issue as rooted in a question-begging attempt to define non-Christian in terms very specific to Mormonism? These are obvious issues, and you're evading them. Oh, well, I'm going to bed, without the inclination to apologize, and still rubbing my eyes.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:05:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
You totally failed to read my responses to you. You are the same person, are you not, who accused me of evading Martin's question when I asked him another question before replying? You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.As I stated in a post to you below. The comments regarding Joseph Smith were additional comments that had nothing to do with why I thought Mormonism doesn't meet the definition of Christianity. If you look at my isolated thread "Mormonism=Chrisitan Cult" you will see that I expanded on my points and provided evidences for my claims. Nowhere, will you see that I used the hoaxes of Joseph Smith to support my claim. I used the THEOLOGY of Mormonism and the Bible, Cal. This series of discussions began when I responded to statements made by Sarah Sue to the effect that "Mormons are not Christians" because I disagree with that too-broad generalization of individual people. I responded to her by giving her an invitation to state her case. She has not returned. As I said, Dan said he'd like to see it handled differently. I told him if he posted it, I'd reply. I did so in the hopes that Sarah Sue would return and join in. There is a distinct difference between the Christianity of people and making a determination between whether or not one religion contradicts another religion. I wanted very much to point that out to her. As a Christian, it is not our place to judge the hearts of others. I came to these discussions honestly, I endured Dan's attempts to frame definitions and then I straightaway, prepared a series of posts including evidences for my position. I did not "evade" the issues, Cal. I INITIATED them! Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 01:25:09
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 01:53:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Own up to what you wrote! I know I read your posts as conscientiously as I could, and that I've been following them for the past few days. I've reread a load of them again tonight, and kept rereading them, and you're still not owning up to what you've been doing in fashioning your account of what counts as a Christian. The SarahSue posts may explain your original intent somewhat, but not the posts that are at issue in Dan's rejoinder. And no matter that you didn't use the hoaxes in the previous posts you mention here, you did later. Just respond to Dan. His questions were pretty searching. You may have a way out better than this evasion.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 02:02:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
I mean it! I want to reach through this bloody computer, grab you by the collar and slap you around! I ALREADY responded to Dan on the thread above where I, holy hell I said I wasn't going to say this again, prepared a series of posts supporting my claims with evidences. I didn't fashion crap, I stated a claim and I have supported it with evidences on the (I'm saying it again) THREAD ABOVE!Go to sleep! Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 02:03:49
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 02:05:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
that I drifted off course in these exchanges with you and overspoke someplace. I am too bloody tired to untangle it tonight. I will come back here tomorrow and re-group.Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 02:06:22
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 16:56:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Cal, I, not long ago, put up a post here called "Regrouping, Cal". It was at least 5 paragraphs long and now I don't see it. I do not have the patience to do it over right now, if ever. I have no idea what happened to it! I think I still have my hand written notes to do it over later tonight. Darn! In any case, if you will read the thread above "Mormonisn=Christian Cult" I think your questions would be answered. And I'll try to retrieve my earlier post if I can. I may have discarded my notes. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 16:58:33
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 21:09:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, I can't find my notes. My reply to you was the first I made today. I'll try to cut to the chase here. Where exactly do you see my "evasion" here? First of all, I didn't number the points, Dan did. The comments on Joseph Smith could have been on separate exchanges but I added them as additional comments. The fact that the guy DID committ hoaxes and that his scriptures have been proven, to the satisfaction of many, fraudulent DOES comment poorly on the foundational scriptures of the religion. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the theology is Christian. If you will read the posts I made on the newer thread above it is THERE that I listed my evidences. If I am "guilty" of anything here, Cal it is focusing my attention on the main event, which is the thread I created above, where I demonstrate the evidences for my position on the issue at hand which is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. This isn't a courtroom is it? Why am I on trial? should I be on trial or should the issue and evidences? Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 21:10:39
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2003, 16:06:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Where's the evasion? You just refer back to your requirements and "evidences" without answering Dan's observation: That you've made your definition all along with Mormonism itself largely in mind in order to exclude it. I think, as Dan argues, that point 10 makes that clearer than the rest, but that it's reflected in the rest of the way you've been operating here. No shame involved in that. It's just that it's bad definitional practice. It could have been an eye-opener for you. As for your claim that point 10 may well have been part of an extraneous discussion, that doesn't hold up in rereading your posts. Here's one cite from "Re: Three Questions, Three Answers": > [Vicki]: At least one of the additional scriptures contained in > Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by > Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what > else did he lie about? Plenty. But it's irrelevant to whether the religion he founded qualifies as "Christian." If it were discovered that Martin Luther lied, would this disqualify Lutheranism as a Christian religion? VICKI: No, it's entirely relevant, Dan.
Quick enough? Cal
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/27/2003, 17:04:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Cal, If something I write is unclear to you I would greatly appreciate it if you would say so instead of becoming negatively accusatory. It was not so long ago that you accused me of "evading" Martin's question because I asked him another question. I was trying to find out if he was becoming ill because he wrote misinformation about me in his post. I don't HAVE 1st grade students and either his recall was failing, he chose to misrepresent me or he was stating a hypothetical without identifying it. When someone writes in terms of "your 1st grade students" it looks to me that they are attempting to use actual fact. The facts were wrong, I thought he was faltering, and he was. I agree that the sequence you posted is crap. I was thinking of two separate issues, my attention went to the newer thread I created and failed to go back here and clarify what I was thinking. Whether or not JS conducted hoaxes or was a scam artist is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the theology is Christian. It merely calls into question the validity of the foundational scriptures which supply the basis for the religion. The Book of Abraham has been proven a fraud inspite of the claims of many an apologetic, ZLMB included, who state otherwise. In my posts on the newer thread I laid out the reasons I think that Mormonism isn't Christianity. You will see no where there that I addressed JS because, as I just said, his hoaxes and lack of integrity have nothing to do with whether or not the religion is Christian. If a religion is needed, here it is: A Christian religion is one that is based on and consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mormonism is not "based" on nor is it consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is CONTRARY to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Cal, I make an earnest effort to make myself clear while trying to deliver replies (which are often in response to a "pile on" of posts) to all who have posted to me here. I participate here in my "spare" time which is quite limited. Most often I am writing on my lunch time (which I am right now), after a long day or with people talking to me. I am torn between trying to fend off a lack of concentration, trying to deliver replies to people I owe them to and trying to make myself clear. It is not always possible to coordinate all of those things at the same time. It was important to me today, even though I feel fully disgusted with this place and some of the people in it at the moment, to come back here and resolve these issues with you, Cal. I NEVER forget that there is another human being on the other side of the screen, I would hope that others wouldn't forget as well. I resent the negative implications of the use of the word "evasionary" to describe me. I am not a coward, I never have been here or on the ground. I am someone who cares to participate here and who handles a full load on the ground. I am likewise someone who takes offense to people asserting the "worst" about me when I make a strong effort to balance all the things I just stated and considering the fact that my participation here is voluntary, the accusations and personal comments are out of bounds as well as are the expectations unrealistic. As with the situation regarding the 1st grade students, my concern for another human being took precedence over discussion. When I think something is wrong with ANYONE here (whether they hate me or not), I automatically shift focus to them. Sue me. In the case of the crappy sequence above, my focus shifted to the newer thread I created and attempting to make my case. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Tue, May 27, 2003, 17:07:39
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2003, 18:39:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
If something I write is unclear to you I would greatly appreciate it if you would say so instead of becoming negatively accusatoryWhere did I say you were being unclear? Are you referring to another post? My stress here has been that you've been evasionary, in the sense that you weren't facing head on the claim that you tailored your definition on Mormonism, but rather deflecting it through other means. That's not an accusation of something shameful. To the extent that it's personal, it's focused at most on a kind of frustrating obstinacy. It mainly, however, has to do with the quality and relevance of your responses. It was important to me today, even though I feel fully disgusted with this place and some of the people in it at the moment, to come back here and resolve these issues with you, Cal. I NEVER forget that there is another human being on the other side of the screen, I would hope that others wouldn't forget as well. I know you never forget that there's another human being on the other side of the screen, I'm sure even ones who, unfortunately, you can't slap across the face and otherwise beat. I wasn't angry with you when you wrote that, just taken aback and worried that you were going to take this as a dramatic personal event in a way the exchange didn't merit. At any rate, I wasn't angry at you, just frustrated because you kept on seeming to evade the real point, assuming I hadn't read what you wrote, which, as I stressed, was rather clear. I resent the negative implications of the use of the word "evasionary" to describe me. I am not a coward, I never have been here or on the ground. I am someone who cares to participate here and who handles a full load on the ground. I am likewise someone who takes offense to people asserting the "worst" about me when I make a strong effort to balance all the things I just stated and considering the fact that my participation here is voluntary, the accusations and personal comments are out of bounds as well as are the expectations unrealistic. I never called you a coward. That it isn't what "evasionary" implies here, nor is it implying the "worst." That's you reading a very dramatic personal slight into it. "Evasionary" here means you keep on, even here, failing to address the main point of the argument Dan's response offered you, and seem unable to recognize what you've actually written, such as in the "crappy" passage I just cited. It wasn't about your courage. Why, Vicki, does this have to be such a huge drama? And this whole discussion bypasses the core of my previous post anyway. It's the question of turning so closely to Mormonism to work out your definition which ends up excluding Mormonism. You haven't displayed much interest in this aspect of the definition question. I wonder if, in the midst of controversy, you haven't really thought about its significance yet. You may actually find it interesting.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/27/2003, 20:26:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm sure even ones who, unfortunately, you can't slap across the face and otherwise beatI was expressing the frustration I have about trying to communicate over this computer! Were you expressing frustration as well when you posted "Aargh"??? I would never "beat" you or slap anyone across the face. V p.s. Maybe I've seen too personal slights used on this board. Why are you worried about dramatics? Do you SEE any on this board since he left? Do you SEE any scenes here? Frustration plenty, drama, no.
Modified by Victoria! at Tue, May 27, 2003, 22:27:49
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/28/2003, 01:09:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
More interesting than these issues would be, if you're still inclined, a response to Dan's post, which picks up the problem in just the right way. Cal
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/27/2003, 19:27:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm glad you have addressed this point:> Whether or not JS conducted hoaxes or was a scam artist is
> entirely irrelevant to whether or not the theology is Christian. I agree completely, and hope we can ignore arguments against the veracity of Mormonism in the discussion of whether it is Christian. You did directly state that it *was* relevant at one time, as Cal has pointed out. I'm not so sure that you didn't actually feel that way when you wrote it. As long as you are willing to accept that Joseph Smith's honesty is irrelevant to the "Chrisitanity" of Mormonism, however, I think we have moved forward. We still need to deal with the inherent problems in defining Christianity as you have: > A Christian religion is one that is based on and consistent
> with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I think your definition is loaded. By this I mean that mentally you are using preconceived ideas about what this general statement means. When we discuss it, I'm willing to bet you will need to add further clarifications, such as: 1). Only "core" doctrines "count" for determining which religions are consistent (how on earth does one decide which doctrines are vital?).
2). Minor variations are allowed, major ones aren't (how does one decide what is major or minor?). You've already suggested that certain differences don't bother you, but other ones do. The problem with this, of course, is that it means you are subjectively choosing what qualifies as Christianity, rather than having a solid, simple criteria which could easily classify any religion. -Dan
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 00:35:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
You still haven't answered that.At any rate, I have been following the dialogue. I've been fascinated by where you've been trying to take it, including your use of a naive version of sola scriptura--which is not accepted by many versions of historical Christianity--as a key element of your approach. It's a train wreck from the standpoint of offering a non-tendentious definition of Christianity. And it's pretty easy to see how your ten-point definition, which was not foisted on you by anyone, especially point ten, puts you in a special bind. It's the bind Dan identified, a problem to which you haven't responded. Well-informed Mormons would rightly jump on it, and it wouldn't take much effort, even if your description of JSmith were true for the most part. I don't owe you an apology. You, on the other hand, owe a response to Dan's point if you're to be taken seriously on this particular issue.
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 26, 2003, 00:36:13
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 00:40:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
Please demonstrate why you think it was my "tenth point". The remark I made about Joseph Smith's hoax regarding the Book of Abraham was an additional comment questioning the integrity of Joseph Smith as a person. It in NO WAY represented the reasons why I think Mormonism doesn't qualify as Christianity. My REASONS are laid out in a series of posts on the above thread. You are most free to read and review those posts, as Dan has, and take me seriously or not.Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 00:45:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'll CAP the categories for you Cal....Q3. How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition?
A2. I'll begin with these examples: ***THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF HOW THE ***THEOLOGY*** OF MORMONISM FAILS TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY.*** Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is MONOTHEISTIC. Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different than the Christ described in the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that the God of the Bible. Mormonism "teaches" a different method of salvation than that described in the Bible. Mormonism is a legalistic religion. The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the teachings of Christ. ***THESE WERE ADDITIONAL REMARKS CALLING INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF JOSEPH SMITH AS AN INDIVIDUAL*** At least one of the additional scriptures contained in Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what else did he lie about? Victoria
DO YOU SEE IT NOW?
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 00:48:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Has the Book of Abraham been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be fraudulent or has it not?Victoria
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 01:34:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
It's solidly established as false, though it's possible, while wildly improbable, that it's inspired by God anyway.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:38:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think the Book of Abraham has solidly been established as false too. Juliann, I believe it was, says it HASN'T been proven false. ;-)Victoria
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 01:39:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
I've read "Summing Up" again, your rephrasing, everything you've written to me tonight, and more, and still I think you're evading Dan's point. I can't believe I'm still doing this. At any rate, it looks like you're getting out of the bind by editing out what you actually wrote without owning up to it. All you've done here is delete what you wrote before, which was, crucially:Here, I'll re-phrase Dans remarks. [1-9 omitted] 10). Founder of religion must not have prepared writings, claimed to have translated them from ancient writings of a Biblical Patriarch (a Hebrew who mysteriously wrote in Egyption), passed them off to his congregation as scripture when he knew good and well that he acquired an Egyptian papyri, had no clue what was on it, and used it as a vehicle to further "authenticate" his postion as prophet. And BTW, it isn't about Joseph per se...it's about the authenticity of the foundational scriptures. It is the difference, Dan, between a reformer and a scam artist. Let me be blunt in my comments here. Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Whether or not the evidences against the BOM convince you, the evidences against the Book of Abraham (Book of Breathings) are insurmountable. The additional scriptures of Brigham Young are the work of an arrogant self elevating man who put the nail in the coffin of Mormonism's Christianity with his exhaltation to Godhood theology. I think you're best off directly responding to Dan's original points, directly.
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 26, 2003, 01:40:59
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:53:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, I'm not going to repost the entire sequence for you. I have ALREADY responded to the original issue that is on the table which is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. I have done so directly, and I'm saying this for the last time, in a series of posts near the top of the front page. Victoria
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/26/2003, 01:29:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here, I'll re-phrase Dans remarks.
1). Belief in Christ (of the Bible)
2). Belief that Christ is God
3). Teachings are consistent with the teachings of/about Christ from the Bible.
4). Monotheistic
5). Must "teach" the Christ taught in the Bible.
6). Must teach the God taught in the Bible.
7). Must teach the method of salvation taught in the Bible.
8). Must not be legalistic (i.e., must not require 'works' to be saved).
9). Must have teachings that are consistent with the teachings of Christ. 10). Founder of religion must not have prepared writings, claimed to have translated them from ancient writings of a Biblical Patriarch (a Hebrew who mysteriously wrote in Egyption), passed them off to his congregation as scripture when he knew good and well that he acquired an Egyptian papyri, had no clue what was on it, and used it as a vehicle to further "authenticate" his postion as prophet. And BTW, it isn't about Joseph per se...it's about the authenticity of the foundational scriptures. It is the difference, Dan, between a reformer and a scam artist. Let me be blunt in my comments here. Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Whether or not the evidences against the BOM convince you, the evidences against the Book of Abraham (Book of Breathings) are insurmountable. The additional scriptures of Brigham Young are the work of an arrogant self elevating man who put the nail in the coffin of Mormonism's Christianity with his exhaltation to Godhood theology. It's because I read point 10 in conjunction with the rest of what you offered here and elsewhere, concluding in rereading it once again the same thing I did a few hours ago. For the life of me, I still can't see how ten above, starting as it does with "the founder of religion must not . . .", doesn't leave you precisely in the bind that Dan presented. If I've mistaken your line of argument, one thing I can plead is that you often write so rapidly and carelessly that the most obvious meaning of what you write could often easily frustrate your intent. That's the most charitable case I can make for you given my reading and rereading of the relevant posts. I'm still looking for a solid response to Dan's argument, one that doesn't dance around the edges, but which solidly squares with what you've said here in your tenth point. Good night.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:46:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
I want you to read the responses in "view all" mode and see how they developed. Further, I want you to read my replies to you here. Then, I would like you to review the series of posts I made on the isolated thread above and SEE for yourself what my position is, how I supported it and then you tell me if the so-called #10 has anything to do with my case and decide for yourself whether or not I "danced around the edges".
Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 01:47:52
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
06/14/2003, 20:41:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Dan, I was hoping to be able to print out your post but looks like the ink well has run dry here. I'll c/p it instead. YOU: 10). Founder of religion must not have prepared writings, claimed to have translated them from ancient writings of a Biblical Patriarch (a Hebrew who mysteriously wrote in Egyption), passed them off to his congregation as scripture when he knew good and well that he acquired an Egyptian papyri, had no clue what was on it, and used it as a vehicle to further "authenticate" his postion as prophet. And BTW, it isn't about Joseph per se...it's about the authenticity of the foundational scriptures. It is the difference, Dan, between a reformer and a scam artist.
Jeez, Vicki, this is an very specific requirement for a church to be considered Christian. Did this requirement exist before Mormonism? Or, was this requirement invented to deal with something that you don't like about Mormonism? ME: I don't appreciate the tone of your reply here, Dan, since the comment that I made had to do with the fraudulent practices of Joseph Smith and you incorporated it into your definition. I didn't correct you and you capitalized on that in laying out your definition. The Character of JS is an entirely separate issue and has no bearing on my assessment that Mormonism is not Christianity. I could have pointed out that separation but I was more interested in discussing the theology which I did when I presented my position and supporting evidence. As it was, we were discussing Mormonism specifically and I included a comment about Joseph Smith which again, you chose to incorporate into your definition. The fraudulent practices of Joseph Smith are evidence that the scriptures that Mormonism is based on are counterfeit. That is NOT a factor in determining whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. YOU: I'm going to get to the point here, finally. On this thread you have demonstrated a bias against Mormonism. In my quest to find out why you disqualify Mormonism as Christian, you have failed to provide a simple definition of Christianity. It seems you have trouble defining Christianity in a way that excludes Mormonism. When pushed on your definition, you honed it, but it became increasingly clear that the tool you honed it with was Mormonism itself. In other words, rather than defining what *is* Christian, you defined what *is not* Christian--and the source of your definition was Mormonism itself. ME: Nonsense. I laid out my position with supporting evidence. I used the Bible, Dan, not an arbitrary made up definition of Christianity. In the evidentiary posts that I laid out I separated them by topics. THOSE Dan, are indicators of Christianity. Your goal here, was to rope me in and centrate on a contrived definition. My goal was a comparison of the theologies using the Bible which is the foundational scripture of Christianity, matching it against Mormon theology. YOU: Point (10) that you have listed is incredibly specific to Mormonism--so much so, that it is a bit ridiculous. You might as well add to your requirements of Christianity that the church "not be Mormon." ME: Again, I didn't formally "list" it, Dan. It was an additional comment that YOU incorporated into your definition. If I failed at anything, I failed to correct your use of my words. YOU: After providing all these requirements of what it takes to be (or not be) a Christian church, it begs the question, "Who is entitled to define Christianity or the term 'Christian'"? When a group emerges and gives themselves a title (or it is given to them) they can define what it means to be in their group. The problem with Christianity is that it is far too diverse for there to be a single authority on the definition. ME: Who is entitled to define Christianity or the term Christian is the wrong question, Dan. Yes, when a group emerges it can define what it means to be in their group. The Bible constitutes the DEFINING SCRIPTURES of Christianity. The single authority, Dan, is the Bible. YOU: Some who call themselves Christian (like you) want to narrow the definition to only include what they are comfortable with. The fact is, there *is* no single set of "Christian" beliefs, and you know this very well. So, to exclude Mormonism from the group, "Christianity," you have to pick and choose beliefs that all "Christians" can agree on in order to disqualify Mormonism.
ME: Again, nonsense. Let me drift off here for a moment, Dan. If you don't think there is ample bias on the non-believing side of this house, Dan, you are mistaken. As soon as a believer, like me, lays out a position like this the deep thinkers on this forum toss out their ability to objectively evaluate evidence and reduce the assessment to "mine is superior to yours" which has nothing whatsoever to what I've stated on this board. The truth is Dan, that any non-believer on this board could have laid out the same position I did using the same evidence that I did and other non-believers would accept their post except for the ex-Mo's who typically return to apologetic mode and defend their former church. How do I know this? JAK complimented me highly when I posted the SAME position and the same evidence over two years ago when he didn't know that I was a believer. On the current threads, he criticizes the SAME position and the same evidence. The position hasn't changed, the evidence hasn't changed. The ONLY thing that has changed since then is that JAK came to know I was a believer. Please! YOU: When you make a rule like no. 10, you really make it clear what you are doing. You have already disqualified Mormonism, not based on any definition of Christianity, but based on Mormonism itself. I believe you are either uncomfortable with the ideas espoused by Mormonism, its history, or its founders. It doesn't matter, though. No. 10 isn't a requirement of being Christian, it's a reason *you* (and many others, including myself) are uncomfortable with Mormonism. But you haven't demonstrated how this makes Mormonism non-Christian. ME: I didn't make a "rule" like #10, Dan. It was a comment I made that you incorporated into your definition, that I re-worded to get on with a discussion of theology comparison and I failed to call you on it because it wasn't important to me. It was, apparently, critically important to you to find some sticking point. I'm not "uncomfortable" with Mormonism. I AMPLY demonstrated how Mormonism is not Christianity in my lengthy and topical posts where I compared specific issues of belief found in the Bible to Mormonism. These discussions were carried out on two thread, Dan. Perhaps you wrote this before you read my lengthy topical posts. Your words here do not represent what I did on the other thread. YOU: m-w.com defines a "Christian" as follows: 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ Remarkably simple, this definition obviously includes Mormonism and Mormons. ME: Yes, that is remarkably simple but it doesn't not include Mormonism. Mormonism is diametrically opposed to Christianity, Dan. As soon as Mormonism injects the deification of Man it becomes another religion entirely. It is not Christianity. Do Catholics believe they can become deified? Do Protestants believe they can become deified? YOU:Interestingly, it doesn't require the "Christian" to be correct about his/her beliefs, or fail to do certain "taboo" things which would disqualify him/her. The question is why you and others feel the need to extend this simple definition to lock certain groups out. Why couldn't it be that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, just not the form that you agree with? ME: Because Dan, Mormonism includes the deification of man which results in pluraltiy of Gods, and that ain't Christianity. YOU: Mormons aren't asking you to accept their belief system--indeed, they expect you to reject it. If you were to say, "Mormonism isn't the kind of Christianity I believe in" you would have a leg to stand on. But you aren't saying this; you are disqualifying the religion as being Christian at all. ME: Yes, I am disqualifyint the religion as being Christian at all. Yes, I am. Mormonism started out as close to Christianity as a new religion could come. When JS and others introduced polytheism (I am NOT referring to trinity doctrine) and exaltation to Godhood it split off and AWAY from Christianity and created an entirely NEW religion. YOU: If you were to say, "Mormonism isn't Christianity in the traditional sense," Mormons would probably not disagree--they know their version is different, and they are proud of it! But to say Mormonism isn't Christianity at all is to take it one step further. ME: To say that Mormonism isn't Christianity at all is an objective evaluation of the theologies Dan. That statement takes it one step further toward reality. YOU: Essentially, you are saying, "If you aren't Christian in the way that I am, then you aren't Christian at all." ME: There it is, Dan. As I stated earlier, you toss out your ability to objectively evaluate the theologies using the scriptures of those theologies and reduce it to "mine is better than yours". What superficial nonsense. I will repeat what I said on another thread. While they have certain scriptures in common...Judaism is not Christianity. Christianity is not Islam. Mormonism is not Christianity. They are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. I have many friends of other churches who are not "Christian the way that I am Christian" and NON of them believe they can become deified. The very thought of that to a Christian is abhorrent.
YOU: Well, that is very convenient for you, but the fact remains, the definition of Christianity includes all sects which profess to follow Christ, regardless of how much those sects dislike being lumped together. No one is claiming Mormonism is the same brand of Christianity practiced by all the other churches, but it is wise to remember that all those other churches have distinct brands as well. ME: Yes, Christianity includes all sects which profess to follow Christ. The only problem here, Dan, is that while the LDS Church professes that it "follows Christ" it's doctrine represents an entirely different religion that is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what Christ taught. It isn't a "distinct brand"...it is a cult. Is it "some kind" of Christianity? Yes, it is false Christianity. YOU: Mormonism may be one of the most different, or easiest to criticize, but this doesn't disqualify it automatically. Unless you can demonstrate a commonly held definition of Christianity which excludes Mormonism, your claim that Mormonism is not Christian fails. ME: Dan, the Bible is my definition. YOU: Asserting your beliefs that Mormonism fails to agree with as part of the definition of Christianity doesn't make your claim any stronger--it just shows your unwillingness to accept diversity within the Christian belief system. ME: I did not "assert my beliefs" that Mormonism fails to aggree with Christianity. I supplied evidence of that. Diversity is welcome by me, Dan. Opposite teachings are not diversity Dan, they are representative of an entirely different religion. I wholly accept diversity of religion. I do not accept false labeling. YOU: Listing specific Mormon problems as part of what must *not* be included in a Christian religion is no better--it just demonstrates your insistence that Mormonism not be included in Christianity. ME: Well Dan, deification of man isn't included in Christianity. That is a simple fact. YOU: The reason no textbook definition of Christianity contains all the specifics you've mentioned is because they vary from church to church. The specifics don't matter--the commonality does. The commonality in the case of Christians is their goal of following Christ. Therefore, to disqualify Mormonism, you have to show that they don't truly want or try to follow Christ. The problem is that they do want to follow Christ--they just have a very different idea of how to do it, and different beliefs on what it means to follow Christ. ME: I don't doubt that Mormons want to follow Christ. They DON'T "have a different idea of how to follow Christ". They follow him in much the same way that Christians do....it is the ETERNAL STATE, Dan that is CONTRARY to Christianity! YOU: Christianity isn't a term that refers to one group with static beliefs: it is a term that encompasses many groups with many differing beliefs. Unfortunately for those who want to restrict the term, its meaning has already become too broad to eliminate religions such as Mormonism. Any definition which makes such specifics as you have given is simply contrived after the fact to disqualify specific organizations. ME: Christianity does NOT include the deification of man, Dan. YOU: If Christianity were a unified body, they could "vote out" Mormonism, the rules would change, and from that day on, Christian would mean (in part) "not Mormon." But Christianity is NOT a unified body, so this is impossible. "Christian" is simply a classification now, which by necessity must include all religions with the common element of "Christ". ME: Christianity, in a sense, IS an unified body. And Dan, I hate to tell you this but no one wants to "vote out" Mormonism. What I would like to see is truth in labeling. I would like to see the LDS Church actually come through with its claim of truth and present itself as what it authetically is. It is not Christianity, it is Mormonism. YOU: I challenge you to find a published, credible definition of Christianity which disqualifies Mormonism. I'm not speaking of a list of problems with Mormonism, I'm referring to a definition that preferably predates Mormonism which has a specific requirement that Mormonism fails to meet. It's worth noting that definitions are usually used to describe, not prescribe. Until then you are simply demonstrating what we knew all along: Mormonism doesn't agree with your belief system. ME: Dan, Mormonism fails to meet the theological requirements of the defining scripture of Christianity, the New Testament. It is not a case of whether or not Mormonism doesn't "agree with MY belief system" Dan. This isn't a pissing contest between "me" and Mormonism. For you to reduce it to such is a clear denial of the evidence. You misdirected these discussions into an evaluation of me. Can't you objectively evaluate the theology, Dan? I gave you a full and complete comparison of the Biblical views on the nature of God, Jesus, Man and Salvation. I set those along side of LDS views. Mormonism doesn't disagree with "me", Dan, it disagrees with the Bible. Even JAK would have agreed with me, and he did, but that was before he knew I was a believer. Go figure. -Dan (edited for spelling) Vicki
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 00:38:27
|
Posted by: Artem ®
05/25/2003, 21:07:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think the problem here is that the argument is made backwards. Categorization must start from an objective definition of the category. In other words a party with no vested interest in the discussion should define what it means to be "Christian" and all engaged in the discussion should agree on that definition before proceeding. If you don't agree on your starting point, on the premises, any debate stemming from it would prove fruitless.
IMO a dictionary definition of Christianity should suffice for an objective definition.Artem
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 22:05:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
Artem,An excellent comment. I add this here only as support for your point. Definitions must be agreed to in order that the discussion may proceed. Otherwise, the debate becomes a childish game of “Yes it is” and “No it isn’t.” A reason that the dictionary might suffice is that its definition is generally simply stated with minimum of obfuscation and/or demands. Setting up a multiple point litmus test for what “Christian” must mean IS backwards as you articulate.
JAK
|
|
|
