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 Christ | |
|
