Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 15:51:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
GOD:MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITYBrigham Young, Journal of Discourses,
vol.10, page 223. "God was once a man on earth, with a physical body of flesh and bone who through spiritual development became the God that we know--an exalted man who is now in charge of our planet." "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming gods like himself. We are created to become gods like unto our father in heaven...Those who attain exhaltation are gods". What the Bible says about God: Psalm 93:2 God is eternal
1John 5:20 God is true
Genesis 1:1 God is self existent
Deut. 6:4 God is one (monotheistic)
Isaiah 44:6 God is First and Last,apart from him there is no other
Isaiah 43: 10-11 Before me there was no other God formed
John 4:23-24 God is spirit
Romans 11:33-36 No one knows the mind of the Lord
Isaiah 42:8 God will not share glory
1Timothy 1:17 God is eternal, immortal, invisible
Malachi 3:6 God does not change
Jeremiah 10:10 God is the true God, the eternal God
Numbers 23:19 God is not man or son of man Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 16:02:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
CHRIST: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITYJospeh Smith, History of the Church
vol 6, pgs 408-409 "I am the only MAN that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor JESUS ever did it. I boast that no MAN ever did such a work as I! The followers of JESUS ran from him; but the Latter Day Saints they never ran away from me yet" Mormonism: Jesus is the literal offspring of a flesh and bone God who had sexual relations with Mary. The Virgin Birth is rejected. Mormonism: Jesus is not the same person as God, but a separate person and NOT EQUAL with God. Mormonism: Jesus had a BEGINNING, he ATTAINED godhood. Mormonism: Jesus was our elder brother who was the brother of Lucifer.
What the Bible says about Jesus: Luke 1: 34-37 The Holy SPIRIT came upon Mary
Genesis 1:26 Jesus was involved in creation
John 1:1-18 Christ was God
Colossians 1:15-17 Christ was BEFORE all things
John 10:30-33 Jesus is God
John 17:1-5, 20, 21 Jesus shared glory with God BEFORE the world began
Phillipians 2:6-8 Christ was God
Colossians 2:9 Christ is God
John 8:23 Jesus is not from this world
John 10:30 "I and my Father are ONE"
Further warnings:
2 John 7-10 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is COME in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an ANTI-CHRIST. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hat not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and BRING NOT THIS DOCTRINE, recieve him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 16:06:33
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 18:14:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
> "I am the only MAN that has ever been able to keep a whole
> church together since the days of Adam. Neither Paul, John,
> Peter, nor JESUS ever did it. I boast that no MAN ever did such
> a work as I! The followers of JESUS ran from him; but the Latter
> Day Saints they never ran away from me yet"Yep, Joseph Smith was a egomaniac. > Various biblical quotes and comparisons to Mormon beliefs Yes, Mormon belief contradicts the Bible. I'm not arguing consistency here, just classification. Since it's all based on interpretation anyway, failure to agree with the Bible cannot be part of a definition. Mormons would definitely say your beliefs contradict the Bible, but they don't disqualify you as Christian because of this. > Warnings from 2 John 7-10 These only refer to Mormonism if you interpret them to. It doesn't help us classify Mormonism as Christian or non-Christian. The "doctrine of Christ" is not a static doctrine throughout all the "Christian" churches. There aren't two sects in the world who can claim complete consistency on "this doctrine." -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 18:37:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan: Yes, Mormon belief contradicts the Bible. I'm not arguing consistency here, just classification. Vicki: I'm not arguing consistency either, Dan. I'm arguing contradiction. Thank you for acknowledging the contradictions.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 22:26:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
It means there are internal translation errors in the Bible. Does any of the listed "contradictions" contradict the method of salvation, the nature of God, Jesus and Man? No Artem, they don't. Victoria
|
Posted by: Artem ®
05/26/2003, 22:57:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
... then Mormons could claim that the way you view the exerpts you posted is erronious (mistranslation or misinterpretation).Why should only the issues you hold dear be free of contradictions? Why should any other contradictions be ignored? Face it, this is subjective! Objectivity is the key element that you keep avoiding. It is necessary for this issue. Artem
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/27/2003, 00:21:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,This is a technique when you have no case. Shift the debate to something else. Your statement:
“It means there are internal translation errors in the Bible. Does any of the listed "contradictions" contradict the method of salvation, the nature of God, Jesus and Man? No Artem, they don't.” That is entirely assertion by you...more assertion to cover failed rejoinder. And of course you know just what and where these “internal translation errors in the Bible” are located. The fracturing of Christianity is historically documented and with each division came the claim that the new (next) one was the right one or the true one or the real one, etc. That is in the history of Christianity without assertion. It has been researched and recorded. And the most complete of these recordings has been since the great divide ushering in the Protestant movement of which your particular dogma is one single little part. But you don’t know about the great divides in Christianity in 800 C.E., 1054 C.E., and 1500s C.E. And you called those great divides “irrelevant.” Course work, you need course work. The Bible is full of errors all right along with contradictions, including the assertions about science. And “salvation” is an assertion as well with conveniently no objectively observable testing...just assertion. And since we know about errors, contradictions, and false science in the Bible, it lacks credibility no matter how it is interpreted or by whom it is interpreted. You dissemble before our very eyes and eject from the debate with more assertions. But you know “Mormonism is not Christian.” Dart from one thing to another, ignore direct analysis of your posts, and soon you will start another thread. You bring all this on yourself, Victoria. All we do is read your posts, respond directly to them, and analyze them. JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 21:41:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan, If someone were to come on the scene today and say what Jesus is alleged to have said, what would he be called? Time and legitimization. Aside from the fact that an historical figure such as “Jesus” described 30 to 100 years after his death likely never existed, such a person would be regarded as “egomaniac” and more. No one who wrote the exact words attributed in Christianity to “Jesus” ever heard one word of those words. Time and large membership in Christianity has obscured the absurd notion that those words were exactly repeated for decades and then finally recorded. Had the words of (an assumed historical) Jesus been spoken, why did no one see fit to write them down at the time? But no one did. If someone came on the scene today and said: John 14:6
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (NIV) -- what would we say of such a person? ... “egomaniac.”
You stated:
The "doctrine of Christ" is not a static doctrine throughout all the "Christian" churches. The evolution of doctrines in Christianity is well demonstrated in the many, many denominations which call themselves Christian regardless of the denominational affiliation. There are a number of Protestant denominations which implicitly or explicitly declare that only they or those who meet their litmus tests are Christian. It is the doctrine of exclusion and intolerance. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:34:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
They would call him insane JAK, for if Christ appeared in the world today he would be a homeless person living on the street with no possessions claiming to be the Son of God and most people would regard him as schizophrenic and not give him the virtual time of day, unless he did the things he claimed he would do.Victoria
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
05/30/2003, 18:57:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
If he didn't complete ALL the necessary tasks to grant Messiahship, his followers would create a second coming, which is not found in the Messiah predictions. Wouldn't that be a HUGE doctrinal shift JAK? Ramona
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 16:16:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
MAN: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITYJoseph Fielding Smith, Former LDS President
"Doctrines of Salvation"
vol 1, pages 113-115 "The fall of man came as a blessing in disguise. I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as sin, nor do I accuse Adam of sin. We can hardly look upon anyting resulting in such benefits as being a sin. Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction, toward the goal, he fell upward". Mormonism: We are all uncreated "gods in embryo" who have been progessing eternally ypward in various forms and stages of ever-highter development in the spirit realh. The literal sons of "Mother and Father God", we are not born "gods" but we are requried to come to this earth to take on a physical body in order to prove ourselves "worthy" of godhood. Mormonism: Satan TOLD THE TRUTH to Adam and Eve in the garden. Following Satan, instead of God, was a blessing.
What the Bible says about Man: Genesis 1:27 Man was created in God's image, God created male and female
Psalm 8:5 God created man
Genesis 2:2-5 God created man
Romans 5:12 Adams one SIN brought death
Romans 3:23 Man is a sinner
Romans 3:24 Man is redeemed by GRACE through Jesus Christ
Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 18:24:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Satan TOLD THE TRUTH to Adam and Eve in the garden.This is incorrect. LDS believe the same as the Genesis account (chapter 3, KJV): 3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. LDS believe Satan mixed truth with lies. He lied about them dying (they would die after eating the fruit) but told the truth about them learning good and evil. The biblical account essentially confirms Satan did tell the truth about this: 22. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
> Following Satan, instead of God, was a blessing. Satan did not tell them to eat the fruit, so they did not "follow" him. They were fooled, according to the biblical account. LDS do believe this was the right decision, because they believe it's the only way Adam and Eve could multiply. > More verses that appear to contradict Mormonism... Yes, these are apparent contradictions. However, they don't help classify Mormonism as Christian or non-Christian, IMO. -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 18:39:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan:Yes, these are apparent contradictions. However, they don't help classify Mormonism as Christian or non-Christian, IMO.Vicki: Yes, they do contradict. Thank you for acknowledging that. I should like to deal with "classification" at a later point in this thread.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 16:27:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
SALVATION: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITY
Brigham Young, "Come unto Christ"
pages 125-132 "No man or woman in this age will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith, it will be through his authority that he has received." Mormonism: Jesus suffered for our sins in Gethsemane. He provided salvation CONDITIONAL on OBEDIENCE to the laws and ordinances of the LDS GOSPEL- baptism, temply worthiness, word of wisdom and temple sacraments. Mormonism: Jesus death on the cross provided GENERAL SALVATION wherby we will be judged by our works. Mormonism: Celestial marriage or sealing for "time and eterninty" in the temple is REQUIRED for exaltation.
What the Bible says about salvation: John 14:6 Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, eternity in heaven Luke 20:35 There are no marriages in heaven Ephesians 2:8-9 We are saved through GRACE, not of works Romans 10:9-10 We are saved when we believe in Jesus and confess him as our Lord Titus 3:5 He saved us not because of anything we have done. We
can't "earn" salvation. Ephesians 1:7 We are redeemed through the blood of Christ Romans 5:16 Grace is how we are saved, it is a FREE GIFT, it is GIVEN, is NOT EARNED. 2Cor 12:9 "My grace is SUFFICIENT for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness" John 3:16 Whoever believes on Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God, sent to this earth to save, IS SAVED. Victoria p.s. The preceeding posts were prepared while juggling two Bibles, a notepad and computer browser on my lap.
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 16:32:33
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 18:33:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
> "No man or woman in this age will ever enter into the Celestial
> Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. If we get
> our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith, it will be
> through his authority that he has received."LDS believe J.S. would be acting as an agent of Christ here, a bit like Peter guarding the Pearly Gates. They aren't suggesting J.S. was a step above Christ. > Romans 5:16 Grace is how we are saved, it is a FREE GIFT,
> it is GIVEN, is NOT EARNED. So what is the purpose of belief? Is nothing required to receive grace? > John 3:16 Whoever believes on Jesus Christ, that he is the
> son of God, sent to this earth to save, IS SAVED. Ah, I see. Grace is earned, through belief on Christ. By the way, LDS don't believe they earn grace. They believe they are required to do their best. If they do their best, the will still fail immeasurably. That is where the gift of grace will make up the difference and save them. They don't believe it is possible to earn grace, it is far too great a gift to earn or ever pay back. But, they do believe grace will be denied if they don't try their best. If you can't have grace without having faith in Christ as the bible says, then obviously even you believe one has to do something to receive the gift of grace. It may be "free", but we still have to do something to get it: believe. Or, do you believe all will be saved through grace? If so, what's the point of belief? What is your take on "faith without works is dead," by the way? -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 18:41:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Do you still want me to reply? I will. I need a little time to dig up some ref's.Victoria p.s. you are the ONLY ex-LDS or active LDS to respond to these evidences forthrightly and acknowledge them as contradictions in the entire 2 1/2 years I've been posting here. My hat is off to you, sir.
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 18:43:17
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 17:27:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Dan, If you feel that I have in any way mistated the beliefs of Mormonism in contrast to Christianity, please feel free to refute any claims that I've made here or request more references. If you want me to address the issue of hell, I'll be glad to do that as well. I have tried to be as thorough as I can be in pointing out the areas in which Mormonism contradicts Christianity. If it contradicts, Dan, it can't be the same religion. Further,it is my view, that Mormon teachings contradicts themselves, but that's another discussion. Infact, had the LDS Church failed to adopt the works of Brigham Young, I probably would have no issue with whether or not it was a Christian church. Keep in mind, that I came by my position regarding the Christianity of Mormonism quite honestly and also quite unintentionally as I intitially set out to research the LDS Church in order to prove to my own pastor that it WAS a Christian church. You weren't involved in Christianity, Dan. You were involved in Mormonism. Unless you study at least the New Testament as a COMPLETE body of scripture you will never see the difference. BTW, the Gospel of John alone, is a handbook/primer on the nature of Christ via the writings of John and the words attributed to Christ himself. Victoria edited to add comments
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 22:43:26
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 16:38:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
I would be most willing to prepare a post on the contradictions within the Mormon triple itself. I have a long weekend and can be here to do that. Infact, if I get tired of other weekend stuff (and nobody breaks a leg around here or something:)I might just do it anyway! Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 16:41:02
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 16:49:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
I found a checklist for cults by digging into rpcmans stuff:http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm I'm going to try to c/p the list here. It was felt to be a good checklist since it's not directed at the Mormon church. Checklist: The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. The group is preoccupied with making money. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, May 25, 2003, 16:52:27
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 20:10:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, Most of the points you found in the “checklist” apply to Christianity in most of its denominations. The list is sufficiently lengthy that it is somewhat unlikely that all of them apply to any group no matter what you call it. Name the items on the “checklist” which do not apply to Christian denominations. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 20:53:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
The following exchange took place on Eric's ex-Mormon mailing list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Characteristics of a Cult....
1. They have a persecution complex.
2. They claim to be the only true church.
3. They claim to have the only true prophets on the earth.
4. They challenge the infallibility of the Bible.
5. Some cults claim to be the true Israel.
6. They defy man, man is God or will become one.
7. They humanize God. They limit God to a body.
8. They all have a procedure by which they attack the deity of Jesus Christ.
9. They claim to have divine books. (Esoteric doctrines to be understood by them only in addition to or in place of the Bible).
10. They have unswerving loyalty to their leaders, one never questions leadership.
11. They have an elite society, they create a racist system, they may always have earthly temples where only a select few may go.
12. They have or have had abnormal sex practices. (celibacy, free sex, sex with their leader only, or polygamy).
13. They have good works as a means to gain salvation.
14. They claim that salvation and exaltation comes only through their organization.
15. They encourage their members not to read materials of the opposing views, materials that are not faith promoting.
16. Each cult is a financial empire and the myth must be promoted at all costs to keep the ninety % at the bottom from realizing they support the ten % at the top. They have doctrines of surrendering all worldly goods and lands to the organization. And/or they have a strong tithing law toward this end.
17. A subtle doctrine of the cults is the church state, their own, instituted some day in America. Millions of dollars are spent toward that goal, such as propaganda, lands, banks, t.v. stations, radio stations and other businesses.
18. They excommunicate or ban dissidents in order to keep and maintain control of doctrine, through patterns and requirements of the other followers.
19. They use deception in recruiting and fund raising.
20. They us secretiveness and vagueness regarding activites and beliefs.
21. They seperate recruits from family, friends and society. A change in personality or values is seen and substitution of the cult as the new family takes place. They call each other brother and sister.
22. They promote the goals of the group over the individual and approve unethical behavior while claiming goodness. The above received the following response:
This list, or one very similar, was posted several months ago and drew a lot of objection, and, I think, rightly so. It is obviously a tailor-made list to make Mormonism out to be a cult, written by a Christian. (See esp. #6, 7, 11, 17). The list that was posted before had originated with an ex-mormon who became a devout Christian. The Christian bias of this list is apparent (esp. #3, 4, 13). It weakens one's argument, IMHO, to use such a specific list. It is like Mormons who, when asked how to recognize the true church, would argue that "It must have a living prophet at its head, it must have been restored by a visitation from God himself, it must have the name of Jesus Christ, etc...." with no objective reason for those requirements except that they support one's argument. Mormonism is a cult, but this test would not identify any group other than Mormonism as a cult. A much better checklist, and one which can identify many other cults besides Mormonism, is here. It is based on extensive examination of many cults, not just Mormonism, and thus is much more valuable. Richard Packham
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/25/2003, 17:56:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Quotes from bibleThese quotes are interesting but don't prove anything about Mormonism. I might add that they are open to interpretation. > For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS... This only matters if you can prove LDS are truly teaching "another Jesus." They would say they are simply teaching more about Jesus. Same goes for "another spirit" (how can we tell which spirit was present in biblical times?) and "another gospel." Mormons believe they are teaching the same gospel--in fact they would say their use of apostles makes them closer to the gospel in the N.T. than most Christian churches. They believe they have the same spirit, and they believe they are teaching about the same Jesus. > Christian Cult It's ironic that you use the term "Christian" to define the cult of Mormonism. You are saying that a Christian "cult" is one that is based on false beliefs (you give other criteria, as well). Basically, any religion which disagrees with your beliefs about Christ, then, would no longer qualify as Christian. > GRACE through FAITH as Jesus himself described in the Bible. Where does Jesus describe this? > not an offshoot of Christianity, but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT
> RELIGION. Lutheranism is so different from Catholicism that I would say it is a "totally different religion." Yet, you say they both qualify as "Christian". > Christian cults use deception, sometimes use coercive tactics All churches do this to some degree. It doesn't make their claims false, necessarily, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify them as Christian, IMO. > The LDS Church is presently attempting to affilitate itself
> with mainstream Christianity in order to santize it's
> Non-Christian belief system in the public eye. That is your opinion of why they are doing it. > We shall see, where Mormonism falls into the above
> description as I post regarding the separate claims I made
> above. And you can decide for yourself, whether you were
> involved in Christianity or something else. I'm not concerned with what I was involved in. But, I can assure you that I am aware I was involved in a very different religion than you! It's just that I don't agree that the classification of Christian can be easily construed to exclude Mormonism. The term "Christian" is too broad to give much idea about what a person believes, IMO. Catholics are very different from Lutherans, but I still consider them both Christians. -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/25/2003, 21:07:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan,Your analysis is good, as usual. Just a few points in this exchange: Victoria:
(Mormon) not an offshoot of Christianity, but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT
RELIGION.
Dan:
Lutheranism is so different from Catholicism that I would say it is a "totally different religion." Yet, you say they both qualify as "Christian". Post Protestant Reformation Christian denominations are generally part of and a result of the Protestant Reformation. You are correct that the Lutheran Church is different from the Roman Catholic Church. It is important to recognize that as time passed, the Reformation led to more and more diversity (or division) to the present time. In 1511 C.E., Martin Luther actually suggested rather modest changes to the Church of Rome compared with differences the thousand groups (denominations, sects, and cults) have today. With the exception of Luther’s position regarding the Pope, the Lutheran Church has much in common with the Roman Catholic Church. However, there are now many “Lutheran” groups. This is not a comment of disagreement with your observations, just an addition. On another point, Victoria stated:
The LDS Church is presently attempting to affilitate itself with mainstream Christianity in order to santize it's
Non-Christian belief system in the public eye. That IS an opinion as you observed. But, even supposing that is the case, it is an admission by Victoria that the Mormon Church is a Christian denomination. Her own statement negates her claims. The Mormon Church is not becoming closer to Islam (a world religion) or to Hinduism (a world religion). The WORLD RELIGION here in these discussions is CHRISTIANITY. Victoria’s comment reveals that she really knows that the Mormon Church is in the historic tradition of protest within Christianity. The fact that Victoria knows little about Martin Luther is also an important lack of information on her part with regard to the evolution of all the protests which have followed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation of 1511 C.E. That Reformation was a critical event in the fracturing of Christianity. I do not mean that the divisions of 800 C.E. or of 1054 (the separation of the church at Rome and the church at Constantinople -- Istanbul) were not most important. They were. But by now a thousand years later from the 1054 division, the most important division was the Protestant Reformation. That is an on-going factor in the evolution of Christianity. It is interesting that time from the inception of a group somehow becomes important in how we regard that group. Time lends legitimacy. So the Lutheran Church has a longer history than the Methodist Church for example. Splits or start-ups with less time on their side, tend to be regarded with less respect frequently. Of course that is not always the case, but it is a generalization which can be applied. Another factor which becomes important in the legitimization of some group is the number of people it can count as members. Virtually every group has interest in membership augmentation. We all know the fate of the Shakers. They are virtually gone as a result of putting into practice their beliefs. Shakers were founded about 1772 in Manchester, England -- as I am sure you know. But because Shakers do not believe in marriage or bearing children, they depend on conversions and adoptions to maintain membership. They read the same Bible as does Victoria -- with different interpretation of what “the Bible says.” They might well be regarded as an example of a cult today. In the United States there were never more than about 6,000 members in communities from Maine to Kentucky. Size of a group is critical to its survival. They took so literally virgin purity along with love, peace and justice that their virgin purity did them in. They were, of course, Christian. They believed fervently in Christ’s Second Appearing. That was a critical belief which was not in Victoria’s 10-point litmus test for “Christian.” I am a little surprised, too. That doctrine is very much a part of fundamentalism in Christianity. Sorry, I did not intend to extend the analysis, but just thought of the Shakers as an example of a phenomenon of the Protestant Reformation. Baptist with all its many divisions is also a phenomenon of the Protestant Reformation. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/25/2003, 22:15:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Sitting at the computer reading minding my own business, reading the replies and thinking that I really need to address Dan's replies to the "contradiction" posts he made when JAK throws this zinger of a peach from out of intellectual left field:
"On another point, Victoria stated:
The LDS Church is presently attempting to affilitate itself with mainstream Christianity in order to santize it's
Non-Christian belief system in the public eye. That IS an opinion as you observed. But, even supposing that is the case, it is an admission by Victoria that the Mormon Church is a Christian denomination. Her own statement negates her claims. The Mormon Church is not becoming closer to Islam (a world religion) or to Hinduism (a world religion). The WORLD RELIGION here in these discussions is CHRISTIANITY. Victoria’s comment reveals that she really knows that the Mormon Church is in the historic tradition of protest within Christianity. " Since when does a groups attempt to affiliate itself with another group, make it a part of that group? Or, put it this way...since when does a groupst attempt to affiliate itself with another group make it "becoming closer" to that group?
And then there's this irrelevant gem: "The fact that Victoria knows little about Martin Luther is also an important lack of information on her part with regard to the evolution of all the protests which have followed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation of 1511 C.E." Since when does a person's lack of knowledge about Martin Luther disqualify a person from reading two sets of scripture and determining whether or not the agree or disagree? I dunno, don't ask JAK, he obviously can't(or won't) take a shot at it! He'd rather work at discrediting the poster. Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/26/2003, 00:56:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, The history of Christianity is not only relevant but critical to understand the cultural/sociological/doctrinal evolution of that religion. The fact that you are uninformed about it is reflected in your strained and unconvincing efforts to manipulate some definition to exclude groups which stem from that unfolding of historical fact. Dan’s eloquent post “FINAL WORDS” needs absolutely no help from me. As for you, you “discredit” yourself by what you do not know of history, but worse by what you are unwilling to learn from those who are informed. M. Luther is the central figure in the Protestant Reformation which is responsible for the evolution of the denominations following that water-shed development in the disjunction of Christianity. Your religious bias would not exist had there been no Protestant Reformation resulting in a multiplicity of reforms and splits. By staring at a drop of water you miss the ocean. By staring at Bible scripts from 1611 C.E. you miss the larger view, the historical view of the whole of Christianity -- not to mention the whole of religion in human culture. You have never come to grips with larger perspectives. And when you are exposed to those larger perspectives, you cower and attach to dogma disconnected from evidence and fact. To deny fact by asserting doctrine is to remain uninformed. In this latest exchange, Dan, Craig, Artem, and I have each attempted to help you, to inform you. Dan may have been the best here as he evoked statements from you which provided him with evidence of your bias and your unwillingness to see that which he spelled out in “FINAL WORDS.” Can you learn? Can you grow? Or will you continue to cover in the murk of narrow doctrines of fundamentalism? JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 01:01:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Do you think they are well prepared or do you not? The issue on the table is whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. I have stated my position, supported my position with evidences and you have not addressed the evidence. Do you or do you not think the evidence is sound?Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/26/2003, 01:59:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, In addition to your comments, I have read Dan’s, Cal’s, Artem’s, and of course my own responses to them and you. I have addressed most of your posts and identified problems in how you deal with what is written. I don’t think your constructions take into account history. Your question is premature in that there must be understood and agreed to a definition of Christianity which is inclusive rather than strained and contorted to exclude any groups (including Mormon). The use of the linking verb in your equation is not correct. The Mormon Church is a denomination of Christianity. That is not the same as saying “Mormonism is Christianity.” The Amish are a denomination of Christianity. That is not the same as saying Amishism is Christianity. I asked in another post how much you knew about the Amish, the Mennonites, and the Shakers. They are all groups which are Christian. I mention these groups because they are quite unlike some other large and larger groups which are also Christian. If you had said, Mormon beliefs do not agree with my beliefs or my view of Christianity, you would have been on quite defensible grounds. Any examples to support that difference would have helped support your statement. Stating: Mormonism is not Christian presumes so much bias by implication, that it is not good as a discussion topic. That statement led to discussion about definitions with none stated at first. Artem pointed that out. Then, when you constructed the 10 points for Christian detector, you made up that which could only result in validity for your bias. The “evidence” you talk about is highly subjective and phrased in loaded language. The greater issue and the problem which must be resolved first is an agreement on some definition for Christianity. But, you can’t simply make up your own definition and by proclamation make it the definition. Your structure for framing the discussion is closed-ended. For example: I’ll ask a question and give options for answer. The question is to a married man. The question is Have you stopped beating your wife. The options for answer are: A = yes and B = no. Then I insist that the man must choose between A and B. When the man protests and attempts to explain, I stop him abruptly and say, “Just answer the question. You have choices for your answer. Make your choice.” The parallel to your construction is this Either Mormonism is Christian or it is not Christian. The framing of the issue in such a way as to preclude possible responses is a closed-ended question. When the man in the story says, “I don’t beat my wife and I have never beaten my wife,” the questioner declares that an unacceptable answer because it was not one of the choices given as answer to the question. It frames the situation in such a way as to rule out what is the only right answer. Dan set forward a series of some Mormon beliefs. I am sure he could have set forward more. The answers to those questions demonstrated that those Mormon beliefs were Christian beliefs. If you were asked to name five great world religions of today, what five would you name? JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 02:13:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, to a great extent, for this moment. I appreciate your comments on my analysis. But JAK, just this one little thing...the first time I posted these evidences was, as I recall, the first time you ever posted to me on the board. At that time you complimented me on my "excellent post! and fine analysis!"! Of course, that was likely before you knew I was a believer and most definitely before you knew I was a member of the Southern Baptist Church. Funny how your analysis changes with the perceived makeup of the audience.Victoria p.s. I'll try to get to your actual comments here tomorrow. And another p.s. Now that I'm done roping you in, sir. ;-) (This is the west, you know!) I shall rest well. Happy Trails!
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, May 26, 2003, 16:52:25
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/26/2003, 20:12:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria, The compliment and denomination vs. cult Whatever post you made to which I paid compliment would get the same compliment today within the context of that post. You are capable of good analysis. If I were to see that same post today, I would likely say just what I did then in compliment to you. That is not to suggest that your analysis is good here. Each of us responds to the words on the screen within the context of those words and the posts to which they are a response. (That is analysis of what happens on this forum.) Only very recently, I complimented you on your recognition that religions are a result of evolving cultures over time. But, your recent posts fail to sustain that recognition as you carve out fundamentalist and dogmatic litmus test points for Christianity. Every person who has addressed your posts has challenged the notion that you are or can be the articulator of Christianity. Every person recently has demonstrated to you that the Mormon faith is a denomination of Christianity. Christianity is the religion and the many, many denominations, sects, and cults which use the Bible as their principle collection of writings as basis for their group are Christian. The fact that various groups disagree does not make them a part of another world religion. Your Christian box is too small. And you are still into truth by assertion. Such a position will not stand, Victoria. Everyone here in some way has pointed that out to you. Dan said:
Don't you see by calling Mormonism a "Christian Cult" you are admitting that they are some sort of Christians? Your response:
And no, I am not admitting they are "some kind" of Christian.
Dan is correct. Whether a Christian group is regarded as a denomination, sect, or cult, it IS some sort of Christian. Definitions, definitions, definitions! Your response to Dan is non-sequitur. It is also a word game. His discourse in “Final Words” is one of the most eloquent, targeted responses to you. It is a “word game” to call the Mormon faith a “Christian cult” and immediately after deny that you are recognizing them as Christian. While you don’t regard this forum as “coursework,” it is indeed course work for you. That you do not recognize the Protestant Reformation as the very doctrinal reform which gave rise to your Protestant views demonstrates monumentally that you need course work. The fact is (and it is no fault of yours) virtually all Protestant groups resist and reject any genuine study of how and when their particular religious bias evolved. It is critical in maintaining doctrinal assertions which they do not wish to put to analysis. It is a way of pretending that their doctrines are unique and superior to other doctrines. “Bible study” under the tent of any denomination, sect, or cult almost never looks outside the tent. It is also likely why you follow that example by making up the Christian litmus test. As has been pointed out to you by several contributors, you made up a senerio designed to exclude. Christianity as a religion does that as well. So it is right in the Christian tradition for individual Christian groups to extend that exclusion as they view their own dogmas as true. You mirror that. Rather than attempt to refute what everyone has told you here, you could learn from it. So far, you have not demonstrated that you will. Differences between denomination, sect, and cult are often largely semantic. Generally, the smaller and less recognized, the more likely a group is to be called a cult. Generally, the larger and more recognized, the more likely a group is to be called a denomination. Based on that generalization, the Mormon Church is too large to be called a cult as you have called it. I say this with no intent to defend some definition, but rather to give a general guide about how groups are sometimes classified. You said “Mormonism” was a “Christian cult.” That is recognition that Mormon beliefs are Christian. And that is correct. However, because of the size of Mormon membership, “denomination” would be a more appropriate designation, in my view. JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, May 26, 2003, 20:16:38
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/26/2003, 22:21:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK: Victoria,
The compliment and denomination vs. cultWhatever post you made to which I paid compliment would get the same compliment today within the context of that post. You are capable of good analysis. If I were to see that same post today, I would likely say just what I did then in compliment to you. That is not to suggest that your analysis is good here. Victoria: You just SAW the same post today, JAK! It was consolidated in one post the first time, here it is separated out with only a few extra verses added. JAK: Each of us responds to the words on the screen within the context of those words and the posts to which they are a response. (That is analysis of what happens on this forum.) Vicki: Like I said, it is the same post, JAK. I did add a few extra verses. JAK: Only very recently, I complimented you on your recognition that religions are a result of evolving cultures over time. But, your recent posts fail to sustain that recognition as you carve out fundamentalist and dogmatic litmus test points for Christianity. Victoria: I did NOT carve out a "litmus" test, JAK. I answered Dan's questions and supported the statements I made HERE on this thread with evidences. JAK: Every person who has addressed your posts has challenged the notion that you are or can be the articulator of Christianity. Every person recently has demonstrated to you that the Mormon faith is a denomination of Christianity. Christianity is the religion and the many, many denominations, sects, and cults which use the Bible as their principle collection of writings as basis for their group are Christian. Victoria: Nowhere on this board have I claimed to be the "articulator of Christianity" JAK, for you to say so is an overblown statement at best. "Every person recently has demonstrated that the Mormon faith is a denomination of Christianity"? What? Where? If Mormonism is any sort of version of Christianity AT ALL JAK, it is a FALSE version. The LDS Church DOES NOT USE THE BIBLE AS IT'S PRINCIPLE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AS A BASIS for it's group! The LDS church places CONDITIONS of interpretation on it's use of the Bible, further more, it recognizes the BOM as superior, JAK. JAK: The fact that various groups disagree does not make them a part of another world religion. Your Christian box is too small. And you are still into truth by assertion. Such a position will not stand, Victoria. Everyone here in some way has pointed that out to you. Victoria: Few here, except Dan, have even DEALT WITH THE EVIDENCES I used on this thread. Victoria: Dan said: Don't you see by calling Mormonism a "Christian Cult" you are admitting that they are some sort of Christians? Your response: And no, I am not admitting they are "some kind" of Christian. Dan is correct. Whether a Christian group is regarded as a denomination, sect, or cult, it IS some sort of Christian. Victoria: JAK, I wrote that in haste. Do you have any idea whatsoever what it is like to be one person trying to get a thread off the ground with all of you muttering around me instead of dealing with the evidence I offered up? If Mormonsim is ANY KIND of Christian church, JAK, it is a false Christian cult and in no way should be regarded as "part of the denomination". JAK: Definitions, definitions, definitions! Victoria: No, JAK! TIME and a MULTITUDE OF POSTS TO REPLY TO! JAK: Your response to Dan is non-sequitur. It is also a word game. Victoria: As I said, I wrote in haste. JAK, I told you earlier that I would respond to your three posts. I have,just now in another post below, told you that I will not reply to you. I don't have TIME to reply to EVERY POST that is directed to me on this screen! Do you realize how MANY posts are directed to me? Your inflammatory remarks about me over the weekend negate even the will I might have to reply to your three posts. Do you have any idea whatsoever, of the enormous EFFORT I make to respond to posts directed to me? Do you understand JAK, that I MAKE TIME in my day to reply to posts from people like you who write at great length? Is that effort appreciated? I guess not. JAK: JAK: His discourse in “Final Words” is one of the most eloquent, targeted responses to you. Victoria: I have only scanned the post you mention. I haven't had time to read it much less reply to it. I think that Cal accused me of "evasion" because I didn't reply to it. That's nice. I haven't had TIME to read it and reply to it. JAK: It is a “word game” to call the Mormon faith a “Christian cult” and immediately after deny that you are recognizing them as Christian. Victoria: I DON'T recognize the LDS Church as Christian. I recognize it as a FALSE CHRISTIAN CULT. YOU are playing word games with the truth, JAK. JAK: While you don’t regard this forum as “coursework,” it is indeed course work for you. That you do not recognize the Protestant Reformation as the very doctrinal reform which gave rise to your Protestant views demonstrates monumentally that you need course work. Victoria: JAK! Why do you think that I don't recognize that the Protestant Reformation gave birth to my protestant views? That is a horridly mistaken and demeaning remark on your part! Of course I do! JAK: The fact is (and it is no fault of yours) virtually all Protestant groups resist and reject any genuine study of how and when their particular religious bias evolved. It is critical in maintaining doctrinal assertions which they do not wish to put to analysis. It is a way of pretending that their doctrines are unique and superior to other doctrines. “Bible study” under the tent of any denomination, sect, or cult almost never looks outside the tent. Victoria: I look "outside the tent". JAK: It is also likely why you follow that example by making up the Christian litmus test. As has been pointed out to you by several contributors, you made up a senerio designed to exclude. Christianity as a religion does that as well. So it is right in the Christian tradition for individual Christian groups to extend that exclusion as they view their own dogmas as true. Victoria: The Bible verses are there, JAK. You are most free to offer your own interpretation of those verses if you feel they are faulty. JAK: You mirror that. Rather than attempt to refute what everyone has told you here, you could learn from it. So far, you have not demonstrated that you will. Victoria: Only Dan, has dealt with the evidences I supplied to support my position. He too, agrees that they contradict. If they contradict, JAK, can they be part of the same body? JAK: Differences between denomination, sect, and cult are often largely semantic. Generally, the smaller and less recognized, the more likely a group is to be called a cult. Generally, the larger and more recognized, the more likely a group is to be called a denomination. Victoria: The definition of "Christian cult" I supplied has NOTHING to do with membership numbers, JAK. Is that how we judge the authenticity of an organization? By how "big" it is? Does "size count"? The definition I supplied has to do with the teachings of the "organization",JAK. Do you think the size of the membership makes it more legitimate? JAK: Based on that generalization, the Mormon Church is too large to be called a cult as you have called it. I say this with no intent to defend some definition, but rather to give a general guide about how groups are sometimes classified. You said “Mormonism” was a “Christian cult.” That is recognition that Mormon beliefs are Christian. And that is correct.
Victoria: No, JAK it is not. It is a recognition that Mormon beliefs are contrary to Christianity, they are FALSE Christianity.
JAK: However, because of the size of Mormon membership, “denomination” would be a more appropriate designation, in my view. JAK Victoria: Only a male would offer that "size counts" assertion, JAK. I am tired of these Venus/Mars exercises in communication. Do you realize that Cal accused me of "evading" Dan because I hadn't yet replied to his post? Do you? Do you recall when Martin assumed I agreed with him because I didn't reply to a post of his? Do you on any level whatsoever SEE how uninsightful you all come off to me at times? I didn't post so that "means" something? It means I didn't reply. Do you recall not so many months ago when Cal accused me of evading Martin's question because I asked him another question first? I wasn't evading Martin, I was trying to find out if he was sick. Twice in his emails to me he got information wrong and I thought his memory was failing. I asked him a seemingly unrelated question on that thread to find out if it was another case of faulty recall and if he was sick. He was. I couldn't ask him off the board. Some of you assume the worst of me and that is outright wrong. Likewise, if I have overlooked a point in someone's post, probably because I'm focusing on one specific issue in their post, I am accused of evading. When I asked you a series of simple questions, JAK, you didn't answer me point by point. Instead you gave a speech. Did I accuse you of evading me? No, I persisted in asking you to answer my questions. Do I have to beg for the same things you ask of me? These futile goat ropes are becoming increasingly tiresome, JAK. When I create a thread as I've done here, the discussion turns to talk of me. It is the same damn thing that Martin does and I'm tired of it! "Vicki is this" "Vicki is that"...how about you all deal the hell with the evidences I supplied and leave ME out of it? You think the evidences aren't good? You did the first time I posted them! Do you begin to see how fickle and trite YOU look to ME? Every day, I go into an environment where people value me, value my opinions, value my experience,value my knowledge and rely on me. And nearly every day, I come here to engage in discussion and people like you turn it into a courtroom with me | |
|
