Since this board is "discussions about OSC" I think it would be acceptable to ask a question of curious thought here. Semi-personal for him I guess. I watch this Christain show called 7th Heaven and I'm not sure if you've heard of it since your of another religion but an incident got me thinking what you would do in a similar incident being proud of your religion and a resonable/respectable person. The the question the show got me thinking is: what would you do if your son or daughter (a practicing Mormon I assume) got engaged to a Jew and wanted to convert suddenly?
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
quote:Originally posted by trance: I watch this Christain show called 7th Heaven and I'm not sure if you've heard of it since your of another religion
Um. Mormons are also Christians. Just sayin'.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Well, I imagine first he would completely disown them and then send the secret squad of Mormon asassins to hunt them down and terminate them for betraying the faith.
Ahem...you forgot to mention that we...er..I mean...THOSE Mormon Asassins are controlled by the "M&M's" which is an acronym for "Mormon Mafiosos". BTW, my code name within the organization is "Porter R."
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think 7th Heaven is lame, but to answer your question (for myself, not for Mr. Card), I don't think I'd ever disown them, but it would probably hurt a lot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok WHAT happened in that episode. I only saw 2 or 3 eps ever.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
And for the record, some people can marry interfaith, without converting (as I have done).
-Bok
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And as I have done. I'm LDS, but my husband is Muslim.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Interfaith marriages are difficult, but not impossible; some lead to conversion in one direction or the other, some remain interfaith throughout. However, when the parents aren't united in the same religion, it's hard to raise the kids in a consistent way; usually they end up religiously less rooted.
Leaving the church is one thing - converting to marry someone; drifting away because of loss of faith or choice of lifestyle; it would be hard to take, because of what I know about the Church and what such a choice would imply about my child's seriousness. The only one that would absolutely break my heart is if a child of mine became one of those hostile apostates. I've known several of them, and their attacks on the church are never what they try to make them seem (i.e., they are never mere "dissidents" who are "persecuted" by the church); but the heartbreak there would be because I could only take such behavior as an attack on my wife and me by a very angry and bitter child. Watching one prominent apostate recently as she tore up her family during her father's final illness, exploiting them to make money with a sad little book full of lies and politically correct cant, showed me what it's like.
But that's really personal, in the end, not religious.
It's not about "going to hell" - if a child of mine could actually sincerely convert to another faith, I would blame myself for having done such a bad job of teaching them our doctrine and involving them in the practice of the faith. A Mormon who has actually been taught the true, core doctrines (not just the folk doctrines that are so weirdly prevalent) would have a hard time even taking seriously most competing theologies; I don't mean this as a slight to other religions, many of which have centuries of theological history, but on core questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction in any philosophical system, least of all any based on Plato, as so many are, the foundational revelations of Mormonism provide complete, clear, workable understanding. So such a conversion would simply baffle me, as in: What are they thinking? Weren't they paying attention? <grin>
As for the Mormons/Christians thing, it's a double-edged sword.
If by "Christian" you mean "believes in the divinity of Christ and his sacrifice to save humankind from sin and death" then Mormons are not just Christian, but a lot more seriously Christian than the most prominent schools of Christian theology today.
But if by "Christian" you mean "believes in theology based on the neoplatonic view of God as expressed in the Nicene creed," then no, we Mormons aren't part of that. Joseph Smith really did restore the pre-neoplatonic view of Christ that is far closer to the doctrines of what is called "the primitive Church." All serious theological histories recognize the shift in core doctrines during the first and second centuries CE; they are likely to call it "development" or "growth" or "maturing," but the meaning is the same: The view of God revealed in the earliest patristic writings is very different from the view of God propounded later and ever since - you know, the version of God that owes more to the neoplatonic spin on Plato's "Symposium" than to anything in the gospels.
By the way, some Mormons are under the impression that it is specifically the Nicene Creed we have a problem with. It's not. NEITHER Arius nor Athanasius taught a doctrine that had any close relationship to either our doctrine or a literal reading of the gospels; Christianity had been hellenized at least a century before their great controversy.
Mormonism is a successful de-westernizing of Christianity - stripping away Plato and isolating us, philosophically, from western culture's fundamental premises. We are, without quite realizing it ourselves, an Eastern religion with Jesus Christ at the center of it, hiding out, as it were, in the midst of the West.
So when people separate us from what is generally perceived to be "Christianity," there are sound reasons for doing it. We are far too Christ-centered to be lumped into the general tradition.
However, most of the time when people speak of us as "not Christian," they are echoing a propaganda campaign designed to discredit us. That is, there is no attempt to recognize the philosophical differences, which ultimately would work to our advantage; instead, the "Mormons aren't Christians" label is intended to make Christians reject our teachings because presumably we don't accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ. And THAT charge is simply false. We are absolutely centered in Christ, and to imply otherwise about us reveals either ignorance of our teachings and practices or ... malice. It's obvious that the founding post of this thread had no malice in it - it is simply an echo of what people hear from their ministers. Just remember that ministers have a vested interest in discrediting Mormonism, and remember that the best place to find out what people actually believe is from them, and not from their enemies.
Posted by Superprime (Member # 8555) on :
I am actually glad to hear this, as all my life I've had the 'Mormons don't believe in Christ's divinity' thing shoved down my throat. Maybe it's because I'm a Baptist living in Alabama, the Bible Belt, where if you don't sing from 'the red book' then you aren't Christian. I've never held anything against Mormons myself, but to admit that to the people I worship with would be like excommunicating myself. So I am glad you enlightened us on this point, thank you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
SP, it's worth noting that when people say "Mormons don't believe in Christ's divinity," the big issue is often not the definition of "Christ," but the definition of "divinity." Mormon divinity is very unlike mainstream Christian divinity.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I would hope that any non-Jew who got engaged to a Jew would be talked out of it by their family.
I'd be willing to have them use any or all of the outrageous lies that have been told about Jews over the centuries if the end result was to prevent the wedding. I mean from horns to baking matza with the blood of Christian children to the bloody Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whatever works.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: SP, it's worth noting that when people say "Mormons don't believe in Christ's divinity," the big issue is often not the definition of "Christ," but the definition of "divinity." Mormon divinity is very unlike mainstream Christian divinity.
As I understand it, the Christian view of God's omnipotence lies somewhere between the Mormon view and the Jewish view.
Posted by Superprime (Member # 8555) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: SP, it's worth noting that when people say "Mormons don't believe in Christ's divinity," the big issue is often not the definition of "Christ," but the definition of "divinity." Mormon divinity is very unlike mainstream Christian divinity.
How so? See, like I said, I have been nigh brainwashed by living where I do, so my view of any other religions is distorted. I'm not saying I'm not a Baptist, I do believe that way, I just don't like the way Baptists say that everything else is totally unacceptable. So I really don't know the difference between Mormon divinity and, wel let's just call it Baptist divinity.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
This is not a question for OSC necessarily, but for anyone knowledgeable about the LDS faith who would care to enlighten me, either through a post here or through an e-mail:
Huh?
I mean, I am not (evidently) well-read enough to comprehend this, though I have read widely in "traditional" Christian theology/philosophy and history. I am aware of the hellenic influences on Christianity, but this is the first time I've seen anybody describe LDS as a step away from that.
You wouldn't have to worry about deprogramming me (much) because all I know about LDS is what I have read here and in Card's books (including Storyteller in Zion and Saints).
And please don't anybody send me an e-mail chastising me for asking and telling me to pray, as seems to happen every time I post in a thread asking people to explain their beliefs to me. I have prayed; so far the answer seems to be "figure it out for yourself."
I promise I intend no disrespect toward anybody's religion, and if any comes across, it is unintentional.
I have been on a search for a few years now to figure out exactly what I believe. I've become more and more convinced lately that "traditional" Christianity isn't it. I've always been under the impression that Mormonism isn't it either, but perhaps my understanding is incomplete.
Specifically, do Mormons have a different view of why Jesus's sacrifice was necessary and what it accomplished than "mainstream" Christians do?
-Icarus
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Superprime:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: SP, it's worth noting that when people say "Mormons don't believe in Christ's divinity," the big issue is often not the definition of "Christ," but the definition of "divinity." Mormon divinity is very unlike mainstream Christian divinity.
How so? See, like I said, I have been nigh brainwashed by living where I do, so my view of any other religions is distorted. I'm not saying I'm not a Baptist, I do believe that way, I just don't like the way Baptists say that everything else is totally unacceptable. So I really don't know the difference between Mormon divinity and, wel let's just call it Baptist divinity.
quote: In the case of Mormons, we differ from many Judeo-Christian traditions in that we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We believe that all matter and the raw stuff of intelligence have existed for eternity, uncreatable and undestroyable, and that God found them and gave them shape. God also has existed for eternity, though not always in His present condition.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that right there is a major difference between Mormonism and other religions, no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I believe one major difference lies in the belief of the nature of divinity.
*nod* Another huge issue is that of omnipotence. As the Mormon God is not always assumed to have created the universe, the classical Problem of Evil (and the necessity of sacrifice) doesn't really bother 'em as much.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
So who/what created the matter for God to find?
I'm Jewish, so I don't have a lot of background on Mormon beliefs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Geoff said:
quote:We believe that all matter and the raw stuff of intelligence have existed for eternity, uncreatable and undestroyable, and that God found them and gave them shape.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
Who created matter? If you say "God" then one must ask, "who created God?" If you say that matter was organized rather than created by God, then you can ask, "who created matter?" Either way, nobody offers (nor can they IMO) specific explanations that really go back that far--hence there are mysteries no matter what path you take. However, I believe Mormon theology presents many more details to some of those mysteries than what I have observed from other Christian faiths. In fact, other Christians have criticized Mormoms for having too many answers--thus (goes their logic), they don't rely enough on faith.
I have also been told the the Book of Mormon is too Christ-focused. How is that for irony?
I am unfamiliar with "Problem of Evil"--sounds interesting.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
Alright, so I skimmed a little on the "Problem of Evil" and in a nutshell it is kind of like exploring the question, "can God create a rock that he can't lift?" (that's not the question, but it's similarly paradoxical)
I suppose the point Tom is making is that Mormons see the existence and allowance of evil to persist as a means to an end--as part of a necessary process, as painful as it might be. Do other Christians see it differently? Isn't the question in essence an aetheistic line of reasoning?
Admittedly, I am probably missing the boat on the whole thing, but that's what I quicly gleaned.
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
quote: I suppose the point Tom is making is that Mormons see the existence and allowance of evil to persist as a means to an end--as part of a necessary process, as painful as it might be.
No. I mean that Mormons (and here I'm generalizing, mind you, because one point on which the LDS church is very firm is that a lot of this is speculation on their part) do not believe that God has the power to eliminate evil or suffering without also eliminating free will, and thus acts to minimize those in the long run without being able to do away with them altogether. This view of God -- as a deity that did not create the universe, is not classically omnipotent, has a physical form, and is bound by external laws -- is not a traditionally Christian one; it's closer to Greek and Oriental takes on divinity. But it also eliminates a lot of the more obvious paradoxes that normally plague Western religion, like "why would an all-powerful God have created Evil in the first place?"
Posted by Superprime (Member # 8555) on :
Christians do not believe, or at least I don't, that God created evil. I believe God allowed it to be created by humans as an expression of free will. But I do understand the paradoxes, and as far as I know pretty much all God-based religions have this quandary.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Third, its more like Mormons believe God is bound by his own laws, rather than external laws.
I would disagree. And I'm a Mormon. This is actually not that different, theologically, from other Christianities.
quote:Fourth, omnipotence is such a hard concept. What's the difference between can't and won't? God lacks the power to break his own laws, or will not do it? Mormons believe he has the power but will not do it. So although it would not technically be omnipotent, his limitations are set by himself.
I also disagree with this (kind of the same argument). I believe God is bound by laws not of his own making. I can cite General Authorities if you'd like. Or scripture.
Alma 42:13:
quote:Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
This certainly implies that there are things God cannot do. The first part of the verse seems to describe the laws that governed the necessity of the Atonement; laws which God must follow if his work is to be accomplished. The last part implies that there are things God *could* do, but if he did, an outside force would act upon him.
Indeed, the doctrine of our eternal co-existence with God taught in the Book of Abraham and elsewhere implies that our own distance from God is one of degree rather than kind; in that sense, then, I believe free will is inviolate, that it stems from that part of us which is uncreated, and therefore cannot be abridged - a notion embraced by the council in heaven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In the LDS view God is perfect.
Well, no. He's as perfect as possible, which is not in fact axiomatically perfect in the way many religions mean the term.
quote: Although it may not be a something-out-of-nothing creation, Mormons believe that everything we see around us was in fact made, created, organized or whatever by Him.
But this is not in fact creation. It's organization. Some Mormons believe God assembled the universe, but He built it out of things that were already there -- including intelligences.
quote: Third, its more like Mormons believe God is bound by his own laws, rather than external laws.
The way I've had it explained to me, the Mormon God must behave in a certain way or He would cease to be "God," definitionally. This is certainly an external law.
quote: Mormons believe he has the power but will not do it.
Except that most Mormons I know do not believe that God has the ability to override axiomatic truth, which is definitely part of many Christian sects' definition of omnipotence. (In other words, most Mormons to whom I've spoken believe that there are levels to Heaven not because God has created those levels and the qualifications for entry, but because that's just the way the universe works.)
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
In our view, the laws are not perfect because a pre-existing god made them so, God is perfect because he is so in line with pre-existing laws.
Morality is absolute, and were God to cease to be moral, he would cease to be God. He could not change morality simply because he wills it so.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Icky, I had the same reaction as you on that.
I've never heard the "Mormons aren't Christians" rumor. I'd always been taught that the Mormon church is just a different sect of Christianity. I knew vaguely of the Joseph Smith story, courtesy of US history and world religion classes, but I didn't realize the fundamental LDS beliefs beyond that story were as different from "mainstream" Christianity as it apparently is. My personal definition of "Christian" is "one who believes that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah". I'd never considered the Greek philosophies aspect, although that now makes sense.
This is all very intriguing. I also appreciate all the explanations. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Superprime: Christians do not believe, or at least I don't, that God created evil. I believe God allowed it to be created by humans as an expression of free will. But I do understand the paradoxes, and as far as I know pretty much all God-based religions have this quandary.
That's kind of funny, because Isaiah (45:7) explicitly says that God created evil.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not to make excuses for God-- but in the context of the verse starLisa mentioned, I think evil is synonymous with affliction or trouble.
Superprime is talking about evil as a moral deficiency.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
My problem is not with the omnipotence or God (I think the contradictions people point out are merely semantic issues) or with the "Problem of Evil." My feelings on Evil are inspired by Augustine, who was an apologist at his time, so they're infused with this Hellenic worldview (and therefore, I now suppose, rather different from those of Mormon theology.) Basically, I don't believe that Evil is a thing, and therefore, I don't believe it is created. therefore, God didn't create evil. Rather, I see evil as being like a direction--the opposite of Good. Therefore, while Evil does exist (at least, semantically) it is not created. (Kind of like how there's really no such thing as "cold." Cold is the absence of heat.)
This belief also makes me feel that good Christians, Taoists, Jews, and secular humanists are all good--"Saveable" if there is a heaven--because while they may place a different entity or value at the center of their journey toward good, the things most of us value are close enough to each other that we are generally headed in the same direction anyway. (I can't quite make that make sense in words. I can actually draw it better than I can say it.) (And yes, this is all very Platonic and assumed the existence of a perfect, ideal Good, which we just can't know perfectly.)
(This is why I reject any worldview that says that salvation exists but is only offered to members of one particular group.)
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Well one thing that is interesting about Mormon belief is that everyone gets out of Hell as they accept Christ (whether in this life or the next) and enjoy the presence of a member of the Godhead.
Posted by Superprime (Member # 8555) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Not to make excuses for God-- but in the context of the verse starLisa mentioned, I think evil is synonymous with affliction or trouble.
Superprime is talking about evil as a moral deficiency.
Yes indeed, I believe the verses in question state that God creates strife. And I also agree that Evil isn't really created, I just meant that by allowing Man to have free will, Evil was 'created' when Man chose not to follow Good. An absense of Good does indeed equal Evil.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: But this is not in fact creation. It's organization. Some Mormons believe God assembled the universe, but He built it out of things that were already there -- including intelligences.
If this is so, then what is there that has been created? An artist cannot be held to have created a work of art, but rather took existing materials - paint, canvas, etc, and "organized" it.
I find the whole Mormon/Christian thing amusing...I'm really not worried about whether or not other people think I'm a Christian - rather, I'm worried about what the Savior thinks I am.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
One of the definitions of evil I have heard used in the Church is that evil is anything that doesn't lead you to God.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Although it may not be a something-out-of-nothing creation, Mormons believe that everything we see around us was in fact made, created, organized or whatever by Him.
But this is not in fact creation. It's organization. Some Mormons believe God assembled the universe, but He built it out of things that were already there -- including intelligences.
I don't get that. What makes God any greater than those intelligences, then?
In Judaism, we believe that the three words used for creating in the Bible have specific meanings.
Bara, which is usually translated as "create", means creation ex nihilo.
Yatzar, which is usually translated as "formed", means creation from raw material that already exists.
And Asah, which is usually translated as "made", means something made from already formed things.
We believe that everything, all concepts, all entities, all everything, are creations of God. And not only that they were created by God, but that they are held in existence by God's will, so that creation is an ongoing thing.
The idea of anything existing that wasn't created by God... it just doesn't make any sense in our frame of reference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What makes God any greater than those intelligences, then?
Ambition, maybe? *shrug* Seriously, I assume Mormons more familiar with this line of inquiry could answer that one.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:What makes God any greater than those intelligences, then?
God doesn't need to have created something to be greater than it, any more than I need to be the father of a particular child in order to be older, wiser, and more experienced than that child. The difference between God and some common intelligence is in some ways analogous to that. He is greater because He has made Himself greater over the course of His infinite life ... while the rest of us spent that same eternity lying in stagnation until He arrived to show us a better way.
And I should correct Tom's assertion that some Mormons believe that God created the world from existing material. While I'm sure there are dissenters, as there are on every point of doctrine, the idea that matter and intelligence, by their very nature, cannot be created or destroyed is stated very clearly in Mormon scripture. It isn't that we believe that God is somehow limited by the fact that He does not create things ex nihilo. Rather, we believe that creation ex nihilo is a fundamentally impossible act, much like creating a rock so large God cannot move it God cannot do it, but then again, neither can anyone else.
[ September 09, 2005, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I don't get that. What makes God any greater than those intelligences, then?
A fair description of what an 'intelligence' might be like are the auias in Xenocide - that is, alone they are sparks of self-awareness and motivation, but nothing else. Embodied auias, though, are something else again.
In order to develop, these intelligences need God to organize them, and guide them down the same path of embodiment that he has traveled. This is simply because he has done it, through eternities of development, and gained the knowledge of how to do it, and we have not.
Edit: Or what Geoff said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And I should correct Tom's assertion that some Mormons believe that God created the world from existing material. While I'm sure there are dissenters, as there are on every point of doctrine, the idea that matter and intelligence, by their very nature, cannot be created or destroyed is stated very clearly in Mormon scripture.
I put it that way only because there are are Mormon dissenters on that very topic on this board, and I didn't want to provoke 'em. Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christy:
quote: I suppose the point Tom is making is that Mormons see the existence and allowance of evil to persist as a means to an end--as part of a necessary process, as painful as it might be.
No. I mean that Mormons (and here I'm generalizing, mind you, because one point on which the LDS church is very firm is that a lot of this is speculation on their part) do not believe that God has the power to eliminate evil or suffering without also eliminating free will, and thus acts to minimize those in the long run without being able to do away with them altogether. This view of God -- as a deity that did not create the universe, is not classically omnipotent, has a physical form, and is bound by external laws -- is not a traditionally Christian one; it's closer to Greek and Oriental takes on divinity. But it also eliminates a lot of the more obvious paradoxes that normally plague Western religion, like "why would an all-powerful God have created Evil in the first place?"
Actually, that is what I was saying, just not in so many words (though I realize I was being very vague).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, there's a further caveat, Scooter, which is that Mormons by and large do not believe that God has the POWER to eliminate Evil, since the act of denying Free Will is regarded as a higher Evil. Unlike many Christians, Mormons do not believe that God gets to decide what is Evil and what isn't, and therefore Free Will is a Good regardless of whether or not God finds it inconvenient.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
The main point I wish to make is that Mormons do not have "theology" as is the norm in other Christian organizations. We do not have divinity schools or vote on "definitions" or policies. Since the beginning of Mormonism there have been different views of the attributes of God.
Ultimately, the thoughts on this board do represent what a lot of Mormons believe. I recently bought a newly published book, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God, by Blake Ostler. I have never found a book that explains Mormon belief in "philosophical/theological" language before. It is serious reading and it could even make it on to TomDavidson's philosophy book list.
For those with less time, I also want to mention this excellent resource which will give you a quick treatment of creation Ex Nihilo and the problem of Evil by Blake Ostler as well. Tom, I hope you have a chance to read Ostler; he is an incredibly prolific and cogent writer.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Blake Ostler rules. He's not really representative of the established leadership of the church, though. To the extent that there's the classic disconnect between what most adherents to a religion believe and what its theologians speculate, it exists between Ostler and many Mormons. The foreknowledge question is the classic problem here - Ostler (and I) doesn't believe God knows the future. While there are statements by church leaders supporting this position, there are also statements by some (notably Neal Maxwell and Bruce McConkie) against it. So, while I think Ostler's mostly dead on, other Mormons might disagree.
By the way, Ostler's heir to a rather sparse chain of formal Mormon theologians. He's probably the most serious one since Sterling McMurrin, and before him BH Roberts. And that's probably it for the twentieth century.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I believe there is good reason why so few theologins (in the classical sense) exist in Mormonism. In some ways it relates to what OSC said above. The LDS religion, specifically as developed by Joseph Smith, rejects discovering ideas about God through logical thought process. You might be able to come to a personal understanding about God by use of philosophy, but never develop a "Truth."
That is because Mormonism was founded on the belief in Direct Revelation for answers to cosmic questions. Joseph Smith wanted answers from God's mouth, or no answers at all. Not that he rejected doing a little dabbling in conjecturing based on what was recieved. He did a lot of that himself, and stated he was doing such. However, he did reject hanging substantial theological ideas on those conjectures (or philosophy) without acknowledging the tentative basis.
And that is where Mormonism and theologizing part company. As MattB has stated, there have been few Mormon theologins. None of them (B. H. Roberts and Orson Pratt included who were Priesthood Authorities) have ever acted that role in official capacity. Mormon theology has developed through Authoritative Declarations based on statements of a few individuals. All other considerations are considered personal opinions and hersay.
Interesting enough, some Mormons take personal opinions and hersay as official doctrine. While other Mormons take official doctrine as personal opinions and hersay. Sometimes it can be hard to say what is what. Usually, however, its more about truely believing in the authority of prophets to recieve revelation or not.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
As a person who cannot honestly state that they are a member of any given church, I have to say that Mormonism(?) is the truest of the western religions I know of. I have long believed that Eastern religions were more succinct and meant to help people rather than indoctrinate them as many western religions do. It is my view that Mormons are an Eastern religion (Thank You Mr. Card) based in the West. Not a single person other than my father and Mr. Card has made this connection that I know of and the fact that Mr. Card is a member of this religion speaks loudly to me.
And now that I have said that, I will speak to the topic of this forum thread. I believe that a person can marry any person from any religion and not have to compromise anything. As the great philosopher Calvin once said "A good compromise leaves everybody mad", but in a marriage this is not necessary, because as long as the two have their core beliefs and sense of morals then they can get along because in almost every religion, those morals are similar if not the same.
Now I will speak to starLisa: your statement that quote:
""I would hope that any non-Jew who got engaged to a Jew would be talked out of it by their family.
I'd be willing to have them use any or all of the outrageous lies that have been told about Jews over the centuries if the end result was to prevent the wedding. I mean from horns to baking matza with the blood of Christian children to the bloody Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whatever works.""
Why on Earth would you want to say this? From what I can tell, you are Jewish, or atleast versed in Jewish beliefs and why do you have such a vehement belief that religious intermarrying should not happen, or should not happen between Jews and non-Jews???
I am finished with my replies and statement for this thread but here as some definitions that I have.
These two definitions below are my definitions which are not taken from a dictionary but rather are a compilation in my head from several differing sources that have been acquired throughout my life. I could write more about this but I don’t have enough room to write a book.
Evil, as a definition, means old, In the Catholic-Christian early religion the old druidic and pagan religions were considered devil worshippers and whatnot which was not true. So all these things that are called evil in the very early texts means that they were old, or ancient.
Sin, as a definition means falling back on the path to heaven/enlightenment/Nirvana whatever. It means that when someone commits a sin, they are falling back on a crusade to reach heaven.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I tip my hat off to you Mr. Card
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Mormonism is a successful de-westernizing of Christianity - stripping away Plato and isolating us, philosophically, from western culture's fundamental premises. We are, without quite realizing it ourselves, an Eastern religion with Jesus Christ at the center of it, hiding out, as it were, in the midst of the West.
Although I have heard this sentiment from Mormons and non-Mormons alike, I am not sure what this means exactly. What is an "Eastern religion" that that makes it NOT a "Western religion" in approach or expression? To be honest, the closest thing I have heard non-Mormons (including Harold Bloom) say is that Mormonism is a return to Judaic Christianity.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Now I will speak to starLisa: your statement that quote:
""I would hope that any non-Jew who got engaged to a Jew would be talked out of it by their family.
I'd be willing to have them use any or all of the outrageous lies that have been told about Jews over the centuries if the end result was to prevent the wedding. I mean from horns to baking matza with the blood of Christian children to the bloody Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whatever works.""
Why on Earth would you want to say this? From what I can tell, you are Jewish, or atleast versed in Jewish beliefs and why do you have such a vehement belief that religious intermarrying should not happen, or should not happen between Jews and non-Jews???
RunningBear, yes, I am Jewish. You have to understand... in Judaism, there are laws that pertain to individuals, and there are laws that pertain to Jews as an aggregate. In addition, when a commandment is violated, it can impact on the individual or on the community in different degrees.
There is probably not a single thing that a Jew can do which is as damaging and offensive to the Jewish People as intermarriage. Nothing else even comes close. Even apostasizing and "converting" to another religion only comes a close second.
If a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, their children aren't Jewish. If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, their children are Jewish, but they are cut off from much of their heritage. And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
See, it isn't just that we don't like it. God commanded it. Now it's true that God commanded a great many things. There are Jews who eat non-kosher food. That's bad. There are Jews who violate the Sabbath. That's really bad. There are Jews who would eat a ham sandwich on Yom Kippur (you're not allowed to eat or drink anything on Yom Kippur). That's extraordinarily bad. But all of those are individual sins, and all can be dealt with on an individual level. None of them are necessarily lasting. Intermarriage creates what we call a bechiya l'dorot, or a weeping for the generations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: To be honest, the closest thing I have heard non-Mormons (including Harold Bloom) say is that Mormonism is a return to Judaic Christianity.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "Judaic Christianity" died out because it was inherently unworkable. Christianity denies the vast majority of the Judaic tradition it came out of, and needed to be grafted onto non-Jewish concepts in order to survive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
woah.... thats something I never really saw before.
But I highly doubt that just because the father is non jewish the son/duaghters are denied their heritage for all you'ld know the mother only agreed to marry on the condition that the children are raised as jews. I know this happened in some of the fiction I've read, but it must've happened in real lfe too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
By odd coincidence, I happened to be reading about this today. The rabbi recounted a conversation Dr. Laura had. Paraphrase:
Caller: "So my son doesn't want to do his bar mitzvah. My husband isn't Jewish, but I am, and I raised them to be good Jews ..."
Laura: "You married a non-Jew? How could you possibly raise your son to be a faithful Jew, when you aren't?"
It isn't the Gentile parent that doesn't respect Judaism; it's the Jewish parent. She decided not to follow a significant part of the Law.
(The odd thing is that I'm not Jewish, and it doesn't matter to me much if Jews marry Gentiles. But I relate. I wouldn't marry outside my faith, either, and we don't even have a Law.)
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
You know what helps people lose respect for Jews? Stereotypes like
quote:horns to baking matza with the blood of Christian children to the bloody Protocols of the Elders of Zion
You know what helps allow massacres and pogroms to happen as the world stands by and watches. ANYONE who doesn't challenge perverted, wrong conceptions like those you mentioned.
I'd hope you'd rather some Jews marry outside the faith than have more people belive stupid lies about them.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
So, some questions for LDS people:
What are the essential differences in LDS and other Christian denominations?
Do Mormons really disagree with parts of the Nicene Creed? What parts?
What's Platonic in the rest of Christianity?
--
Hey, does anybody notice the "Ads by Goooogle" at the bottom? Mine currently advertises "pictures of Beautiful Mormon singles" and "Tools for reaching LDS (Mormons) with the true Christian Gospel." Somebody might need to adjust that algorithm...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To be honest, the closest thing I have heard non-Mormons (including Harold Bloom) say is that Mormonism is a return to Judaic Christianity.
Hm. I don't see much that's Judaic about Mormonism at all, actually.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Actually, Tom, I think most Mormons would consider that a pretty good description.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "Judaic Christianity" died out because it was inherently unworkable.
Obviously, Mormons disagree. Though I actually believe 'primitive Christianity' is a better term; you won't find Mormons arguing that circumcision or the law of Moses is still applicable in its entirety. (Actually, I have heard pro-circumcision arguments, though they're hardly official).
And I also find it intersting that Mormons feel the same way about marriage outside the tribe; it's strongly frowned upon, even officially.
quote:So, some questions for LDS people:
What are the essential differences in LDS and other Christian denominations?
Do Mormons really disagree with parts of the Nicene Creed? What parts?
What's Platonic in the rest of Christianity?
1) Yikes. Too many to mention. The conception of the Trinity and of God himself that I think has already been mentioned is a big one. Close behind is the Mormon stress on ecclesiastical authority, though this is shared to some degree with Catholicism. Mormons believe in an open canon of scripture. Add to that a whole host of new doctrines which traditional Christianity does not share - the stuff about intelligences being a primary one. And Mormons have temple rites strongly reminiscent of what you find in Leviticus which other Christians see as terribly foriegn (though you're not going to get any Mormons on this board to discuss them in greater detail; they're seen as highly sacred and therefore not to be discussed in casual company).
2)Mostly there are some difficulties with the overtly classical trinitarianism in some of the language, particularly the "of one Being with the Father" clause in reference to Christ, and the Filioque clause.
3)Short answer: what is usually meant by this is the definition of God as absolute - unbounded, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. The logical conclusion traditionally drawn from this is of an impersonal, unbodied God, beyond any possibility of human understanding, on the other side of an ontological divide that cannot be bridged. Perhaps stuff that has earlier been posted in this thread makes is clear why that's a problem.
Aside to Tom: Really? You're maybe not looking in the right places. Beyond theology, consider the quite conscious self-construction of Mormons as an ethnic group, which was very consciously based on Biblical Judaism - one example of which would be the marriage thing I mentioned above. Mormons even had an Exodus.
[ September 11, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Actually, Tom, I think most Mormons would consider that a pretty good description.
Would Jews? Because if I say something like "you know, I'm a lot like your typical black man," I'd expect the black man to be more entitled than I am to that determination. If Jews as a whole agree that Mormons are a lot like them, then I think you've got a claim. Otherwise, not so much.
----
Will, I agree that Mormons quite self-consciously style themselves after what they think is Judaic tradition. I think they fail almost completely, however, at actually resembling Judaism, except insofar as certain similarities -- insularity, taboos against intermarriage, etc. -- tend to be shared among minority religions.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: woah.... thats something I never really saw before.
But I highly doubt that just because the father is non jewish the son/duaghters are denied their heritage for all you'ld know the mother only agreed to marry on the condition that the children are raised as jews. I know this happened in some of the fiction I've read, but it must've happened in real lfe too.
Even if they're raised as Jews, they're hardly going to be raised as Jews who keep God's laws. That doesn't happen.
But what I meant by heritage is more than that. According to Jewish law, being Jewish goes by matrilineal descent. If your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish. No "conversion out" or any personal choice can change that.
But tribal affiliation, to the extent that such is known, goes according to the father. In most cases, this is only known for Levites and the subset of Aaronites (Kohanim) within them. The son of a Kohen is a Kohen. And even if someone doesn't know their tribe, they're still a member of it. But the child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is tribeless. And while it has less immediacy in 2005, it is a difference.
That was the heritage I was speaking of.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism?
And is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?
I'm going to answer this for those, other than Icarus, who might actually be interested in an answer, rather than in scoring rhetorical points.
I think there are a ton of non-Jews who have a lot more respect for Jews and Judaism than a Jew who has intermarried. Marrying out demonstrates contempt for Judaism. How do you teach your kids that it's important to follow God's laws when you aren't following them yourself? "Do as I say; not as I do"?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Will, I agree that Mormons quite self-consciously style themselves after what they think is Judaic tradition. I think they fail almost completely, however, at actually resembling Judaism, except insofar as certain similarities -- insularity, taboos against intermarriage, etc. -- tend to be shared among minority religions.
Ah, that depends on how you define Judaic tradition, and I'd be interested in how you do so. If you're defining it solely as religious practice, than perhaps you have a point; Mormons aren't celebrating Passover (though there *are* similarities, particularly in the temple rituals). However, in terms of sacred history and rhetoric - the things which make up religious culture - the degree to which Mormons have patterned themselves after Judaism are striking, and are far more specific than the simple expressions of insularity you cite.
And applying your 'black man' logic to the parameters of this discussion, I can only conclude that the Catholics get to decide who is Christian.
Edit: By the way, I was considering citing turnabout as fair play and calling you 'Tim,' but graciously decided not to do so. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: You know what helps people lose respect for Jews? Stereotypes like
quote:horns to baking matza with the blood of Christian children to the bloody Protocols of the Elders of Zion
You know what helps allow massacres and pogroms to happen as the world stands by and watches. ANYONE who doesn't challenge perverted, wrong conceptions like those you mentioned.
I'd hope you'd rather some Jews marry outside the faith than have more people belive stupid lies about them.
Shouldn't that be Princess Leia?
And I'm sorry you'd hope that. Because I wouldn't rather that at all.
I've run into some of the most arrantly stupid misconceptions about Jews. Some from people who are relatively inoffensive about it; they were just miseducated.
A missionary once came to my parents' home on Saturday when I was home visiting from college. I wasn't raised religious, and the rest of my family isn't, but I argued myself into it in college.
So this guy comes to the door selling window cleaner. I explain to him that I wish him luck, but that I can't buy anything on Shabbat. Well, this gets us into a whole big discussion about Judaism and so on. And it develops that he'd never, ever, heard that Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah. He was under the impression that everyone accepted that, and that the Jews, nevertheless, had rejected him.
I don't know whether I was successful in disabusing him of this weird concept or not, but I certainly did try.
And yes, you can make the case that people believing tripe like that is dangerous, since hell, what kind of perverse and evil nutjobs believe that someone is god on earth and some sort of savior, and rejects him anyway?
But Leah, understand something. I'm a Jew. And I know that the only thing that ever endangers us is ourselves. God has made it quite clear, over and over and over again, that we can rely on Him if we do what we're supposed to, and that we can rely on Him standing aside if we don't.
A Jew who marries out is a greater danger to the Jewish people than a hundred Mel Gibsons.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Then that will be the death of Judaism, if all Jews believe that.
I think that the relation between Mormonism and the Gnostic Christians, or Buddhists, is greater than the similarity between it and Judaism by a long shot.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
and I am saying it will be the death not as an aggressive remark, but as a expression of my view that primarily genetic religions cannot survive in todays culture.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: and I am saying it will be the death not as an aggressive remark, but as a expression of my view that primarily genetic religions cannot survive in todays culture.
<shrug> We've been counted out by more nations and cultures that no longer exist than probably any other people in history. Had we given in to other cultures as you seem to be suggesting, we'd be nothing but a footnote in the history books by now.
Today's culture will pass, and we'll still be here. I'm not worried.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Tom -- what I said was that most Mormons would consider the description of Mormonism as it relates to Judism quite a good description. I never said Jews would agree. And I certainly never said you would have a clue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* But since we initially entered the conversation from the direction of "a non-Mormon, Harold Bloom, says that Mormonism is something like a return to Judaic Christianity," and since we all know the LDS church has its one of its foundational tenets that they are a return to Judaic Christianity, I didn't particularly see the value in saying something that would boil down to "Mormons think their theology is right." Because, well, duh.
Certain Mormon terminology is deliberately taken from Judaic tradition, but very few Mormon traditions, rituals, or beliefs have anything to do with Jewish ones as they are now practiced or understood to have been practiced. This doesn't mean that the Mormons can't be right, but it does mean that I can understand why many Jews consider the Mormon assertion that they represent a Jewish heritage to be insulting to the point of blasphemy.
Again, it would be like my claiming to represent "real" Hispanic culture. Maybe I DO -- but would a typical Hispanic think so? Does that mean they're doing it wrong?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sigh. back to original question. Because, you see, I don't believe what my parents raised me to, with regards to religion. OSC says he'd blame himself for improper child rearing, because no child raised properly could deny the truth of it.
But that happens in *every* religion. And there will always be some children for whom the religion just doesn't ring true, no matter how sincere and devoted the parents are.
I truly believe my parents raised me correctly as a child to stay faithful to their religion. It's just sometimes it doesn't work out. The belief just doesn't resonate at the deep level it's supposed to. How long as a parent do you blame yourself for it and how do you move on with life.
I feel awful about my parents blaming themselves. Insisting it was my choice to leave the religion doesn't really help either. And it isn't entirely correct, because it wasn't just choice, it was lack of reasonance , which is something that can't be manufactured or chosen. Telling them too leave it up to their God isn't comforting either (though theoretically it should be.)
AJ
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:And applying your 'black man' logic to the parameters of this discussion, I can only conclude that the Catholics get to decide who is Christian.
I'm Catholic, so I'm ok with that!
OK, back to being serious.
So Mormons are big on ecclesiastical authority? I thought they were ultra-Protestant, and preferred to think of everyone as clergy. Hm.
What is an open canon of Scripture?
What are the intelligences?
I looked up the Filioque clause. It seems that the controversy over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & Son (Catholic) or from the Father only (Orthodox). Seems sort of technical to me.
So Mormons reject the Trinity. What is the relation between Father Son and Holy Spirit, in Mormon thought?
I'm getting an impression Mormons think of God as a very powerful being, but not fundamentally different from less powerful beings like us. Is this right? Does this difference have a practical effect?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Good questions!
quote:So Mormons are big on ecclesiastical authority? I thought they were ultra-Protestant, and preferred to think of everyone as clergy. Hm.
Yes and no. We believe that each person can receive revelation pertaining to his or her domain. So a mother and father can receive revelation about what their family should do, and a person can receive revelation for him- or herself. A "bishop" (basic ecclesiastical leader of a congregation) can receive revelation for his ward (congregation), and so on. But at the point where the bishop tries to speak for the church or tries to lay down new doctrine, the bishop is overstepping his bounds. Only the prophet is authorized by God to speak for the church. At the same time, not only the prophet is authorized to receive inspiration from God.
quote:What is an open canon of Scripture?
This means we believe that God will continue to reveal things to His church. We do not believe that the Bible is the end of revelation; not even our current set of canonized scripture (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants with the Bible) is the end of God's words. As God reveals new things to His prophets, we will add to the scriptures.
quote:What are the intelligences?
I think this has already been answered in this thread, so I won't go into that again. Basically, they are proto-spirits, which are proto-people. God organized intelligences into spirits and then spirits into us.
quote:I looked up the Filioque clause. It seems that the controversy over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & Son (Catholic) or from the Father only (Orthodox). Seems sort of technical to me.
We believe that the Holy Spirit is a being distinct from either the Father or the Son and that He does not yet have a body. He is a member of the trinity or Godhood as we call it.
quote:So Mormons reject the Trinity. What is the relation between Father Son and Holy Spirit, in Mormon thought?
As I said above, we believe they are three separate people who are perfectly united in purpose. This means that any of them can speak for the others, which allows the Holy Ghost to bear witness of the Father and the Son.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Oops! Missed one.
quote:I'm getting an impression Mormons think of God as a very powerful being, but not fundamentally different from less powerful beings like us. Is this right? Does this difference have a practical effect?
Yes. The practical effect is that we believe (and this is where a lot of other Christian religions begin to call "blasphemy!") that we can become like God is. That is our purpose in this life: to become perfect through Christ so that we can live with the Father for eternity and continue to progress toward the perfection of knowledge, goodness, and power that He is. We also believe that He is the father of our spirits and the literal father of Jesus Christ. Because we see God as a father, our perception of the family is that it is the most important unit in the church and that motherhood and fatherhood are essential parts of learning to become like God.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: So Mormons are big on ecclesiastical authority? I thought they were ultra-Protestant, and preferred to think of everyone as clergy. Hm.
A few things to add, apart from what Brinestone said.
First of all, LDS do not consider themselves 'Protestant'. We consider ourselves 'Restorationist'
I understand that in the Catholic church, there is taught to be a lesser priesthood of all Church members, who do not have authority to act in priesthood ordinances unless there are very extreme conditions, and a proper Priest, who has been set apart in Holy Orders, is not available.
The LDS Church believes that while all men can recieve the authority of, and be ordained to the Priesthood, they are still under the direction of their local leaders. While some ordinances (such as giving blessings of comfort, and annointing of the sick) can be performed without permission from a higher authority, other ordinances (such as Baptisms and Confirmations) must be done only under the direction of the local Bishop.
While the Bishop leads the local congregation (with his two councilors) in temporal and spiritual matters, he too, when it comes to leadership matters and policy, is under the direction of a Stake Presidency (a stake being a larger, city-wide-or-larger area), who in turn is under the direction of Area Authority Seventies, who are in turn under the direction of the General Authorities (The Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency).
All of whom are under the direction of Jesus Christ
There is a definite Line of Authority that is very highly maintained.
Posted by Hot Soup (Member # 7840) on :
I, like Will B, am also Catholic, and am very interested particularily in your perception of Jesus Christ, particularily the incarnation. One belief Catholics and Mormons have in common is the belief in the physical body of Christ. I'm wondering whether you belive Jesus had a body before the incarnation. Because if so, why "be born of a virgin" and all that?
BTW, I'm finding this discussion fascinating, especially that alot of my beliefs surrounding mormonism were unfounded. It certainly bears investigation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tom, you may not agree that Mormons are much like Jews, and perhaps I see your point. Even Mormons would agree that we aren't JEWISH in our practices. However, I would at least like you to read Harold Bloom's "Post-Christian America" (or whatever that is called). Especially what he says about Mormons. His conclusions are that Joseph Smith has an uncanny ability to bring back ideas from the more ancient Jewish religion. It would also be nice if you could read some books by Margeret Barker, although she doesn't mention Mormons at all. Jan Shipp's "A New Religous Tradition" also mentions the Jewish Christian relationship at least once.
Still, that isn't really my question. It has more to do with what an Eastern religion is and why would Mormons be related? As for Gnostic Christianity, I disagree completely with the comparison. If you really understood both of them there are some huge and insermountable differences. Ones I can think of right now is the nature of Evil (LDS necessary vs. Gnost a mistake), the human body (LDS not just good, but great vs Gnost completely evil and to be done away with), and God (LDS seperate and distinct with glorified bodies vs. Gnost having no body or even expressable existance). Those are pretty important differences. The more I read about Gnostic the more different the similarities become; usually of superficial relationships. It would be like saying an apple is pretty much an orange. They are round, sweet, and come from trees.
edit: Hot Soup, LDS don't believe Jesus had a body before coming to Earth to be born. It was his first one. Part of his mission was to get a body (although different from us mortals because of his miraculous birth and parentage)and resurrect making it possible for everyone to do likewise.
[ September 12, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I was just about to suggest Margaret Barker myself! Having read some of her essays and reviews of her work, I VERY much want to read her book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Becoming like God: other Christian sects also have the concept of becoming virtuous like him, and there's certainly some implication of power (we are "priests and kings" and "what we bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"). Can we ever equal God's power, in LDS thinking? Or is our future simply exercising His power (as I believe Catholic thought has it)?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: One belief Catholics and Mormons have in common is the belief in the physical body of Christ. I'm wondering whether you belive Jesus had a body before the incarnation. Because if so, why "be born of a virgin" and all that?
We believe that He did not have a body before His incarnation, but was a spirit Being. (Which doesn't lessen His Godhood.)
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:God has made it quite clear, over and over and over again, that we can rely on Him if we do what we're supposed to, and that we can rely on Him standing aside if we don't.
Well, starLisa, I have a oft-told joke to repeat, and then i will stop because I've promised myself I wouldn't rise to this bait again.
(this has nothing to do with Katrina. it's just how the story goes) There once was a flood. A man was left stranded on his rooftop with the water rising higher and higher every minute. He was a devout believer. He prayed to God to save him from drowning. When the water was up to his knees, another man in a boat came rowing by. He offered to take the man to safety, but he refused, saying that he had faith that God would save him. The man in the boat shrugged and moved on. This happend again and again. The man on the roof was treading water and tiring fast. He prayed to God to save him with his last strength, then he went under. In heaven, he asked God, "why didn't You save me?" And God replied, "Why didn't you get into the boats I sent?"
Do I have to sum up the moral. Cuz I'm stressed out and I really don't feel like it. I'm going to take a walk and go to bed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:God has made it quite clear, over and over and over again, that we can rely on Him if we do what we're supposed to, and that we can rely on Him standing aside if we don't.
I know. All those people who died in the Holocaust must have deserved it. Theodicy is a bit more complex than you're making it out to be.
---
Incidentally, so is Judaism as a whole. The orthodox view you're representing is not held by a great many faithful Jews.
Posted by trance (Member # 6623) on :
One question that always puzzled me about religions is the conditions of being sent to Hell by belief in other faiths. In Christianity it states that as long as you believe that Christ died for the forgiveness of your sins and you accept him as your savior then you get your ticket to Heaven. This means that if your Jewish...you go straight to Hell. But then if you're Mormon or Cathlic and so many other Christ based religions then by the Heaven-entry beliefs of Christianity they would still go to Heaven even though they are of other religions. What my question is is does this apply on the other end? i.e. By the rules and beliefs of Mormons and Cathlics, even if someone is Christian then wouldn't they still go to Heaven too? And if the answer is yes then I don't see why there must be so many different religions and so many different branches in those religions. If the answer is yes then that proves that there is no wrong way to worship just as long as you believe and trust in the word of the Bible. Then again maybe that's why there is so many religions and branches of religions (because they are all just different ways of worshiping same thing with slightly different beliefs) and the competition between them is the simple cause for them saying that the other way is wrong when infact it isn't. Am I wrong by thinking this?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Though engaged to a Methodist girl, several years ago I started studying my own religion (Judaism) much more closely. Going to temple on a very regular basis, reading up on traditions and beliefs my mother never taught and so forth. I hear people speak starLisa'a point of view fairly often. The scriptures do flat order Jews not to intermarry. There really are no if and or buts about it. The biggest reason is to be a good Jew, one must strictly adhere to the 600+ laws given to us, and having a non Jewish spouse makes that impossible. I'm the perfect example of what she's talking about. My mother married a non-Jew. We had a non kosher household, and did not attend services often. I had my Bar Mitzvah and Confirmation, but until just after college I never really did much. (Though I can honestly say I never celebrated a single Christian holiday!) Now I have no tribe (mother was Kohein) and my children will never be Jewish.
[ September 13, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by trance: One question that always puzzled me about religions is the conditions of being sent to Hell by belief in other faiths. In Christianity it states that as long as you believe that Christ died for the forgiveness of your sins and you accept him as your savior then you get your ticket to Heaven. This means that if your Jewish...you go straight to Hell. But then if you're Mormon or Cathlic and so many other Christ based religions then by the Heaven-entry beliefs of Christianity they would still go to Heaven even though they are of other religions. What my question is is does this apply on the other end? i.e. By the rules and beliefs of Mormons and Cathlics, even if someone is Christian then wouldn't they still go to Heaven too? And if the answer is yes then I don't see why there must be so many different religions and so many different branches in those religions. If the answer is yes then that proves that there is no wrong way to worship just as long as you believe and trust in the word of the Bible. Then again maybe that's why there is so many religions and branches of religions (because they are all just different ways of worshiping same thing with slightly different beliefs) and the competition between them is the simple cause for them saying that the other way is wrong when infact it isn't. Am I wrong by thinking this?
Judaism teaches that non-Jews just have 7 laws they must follow to enjoy what ever world there is to come.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I feel awful about my parents blaming themselves. Insisting it was my choice to leave the religion doesn't really help either. And it isn't entirely correct, because it wasn't just choice, it was lack of reasonance , which is something that can't be manufactured or chosen.
Banna, set yourself at ease. Good parents feel guilty about what they do wrong (perceived or factual) raising their kids. I will feel bad and something of a failure if my children reject the God I'm bringing them up to love. It won't make me love them any less and it certainly will not be their fault that I feel that way. But I'm pretty sure I will feel I failed them some. Along with all the other things I failed them in, a list which grows longer as they grow older. It's an occupational hazard. Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
What are the seven laws?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Do not worship idols. Do not blaspheme. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit immoral sexual acts (homosexuality is open for debate). Do not be cruel to animals (eating flesh ofliving animal). Maintain courts of justice to uphold the other 6 laws.
Its one of the reasons we don't try to convert people. Non-Jews are supposed to have an easier path to the world to come.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Before I finish reading the page (because I have to go home now) I have a few questions starting from this little event:
Mormons come up in a discussion about Christianity/Evolution (since I'm the agnostic guy who comes in looking for a fight ) and a freind of mine smiles and says "They aren't Christians" as if it was something only children would consider.
And about a year later he lists these things that Mormons believe (supposedly): Sacred underpants, 8 foot tall aliens on the moon and the 12 lost tribes of Israel are living in the North pole sipping on Coconuts.
Are any of those true???
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
One of them is kind of close. But otherwise, no.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
How does one sip on a coconut, I wonder?
And, more important, where do they get the coconuts? Are they carried? And what is the windspeed velocity of a swallow?
Posted by wad (Member # 8605) on :
This is my first post on this website, so I'd like to say "hi" to everyone. I've been enjoying reading this thread today. Very interesting! As a member of the LDS Church myself, I'm always excited to share my beliefs with anyone who will listen.
First, I'd like to offer my thanks to Orson Scott Card for his delightful and intelligent post on the subject. So much wisdom in so few words!
The topic has wandered from the original question, but that's okay. I'll contribute my $0.02 I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by trance: One question that always puzzled me about religions is ... [snip] ... other faiths. In Christianity it states that ... [snip] ... so many other Christ based religions ... [snip] ... I don't see why there must be so many different religions and so many different branches in those religions ... [snip]
It's interesting that you ask this question in this thread. Why on earth are there so many Christian religions? Why so many churches, all claiming to believe in Christ? Shouldn't the Bible answer all these questions, if it's the word of God?
The reason it is so interesting is that this is precisely what drove Joseph Smith to the grove of trees to pray to God for an answer in the first place.
Somewhere around 1820, this 14-year-old boy read James 1:5 where it states that "if anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask in faith, and it shall be given him."
After pondering deeply on this scripture, he went to the woods to pray in private, and ask which church to join.
Now here is the tip of the blade: What happened next? Did Joseph make up his story about the vision? Was he a liar, or did he really have a vision from God? Was he misguided, or deceived?
There are currently more than twelve million members of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If Joseph Smith was a fake, then all these people have been duped. This would probably be the greatest hoax in the history of the world.
If this is the case, the only consolation is that many of these people are trying to live good Christlike lives. Even if it happens that we're being too vigorous in our devotion, surely we're not going to fare the worse in the next life for it.
On the other hand, if Joseph told the truth, that he did indeed see God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, and they told him that these churches were the churches of men, and that later in his life, Joseph would be an instrument in the hand of God in bringing to pass the restoration of an organization personally headed by Jesus Christ Himself, for the purpose of bringing mankind closer to God, and preparing the world to receive Christ at his Second Coming, then can there possibly be a more important message for the world, than that the heavens are open once again, and that God speaks to a prophet to guide mankind?
Perhaps this gives clues as to the great success of the missionary efforts of this church. They really believe in the importance of the message.
If this is the case, then why doesn't God just tell everyone the good news directly?
Because one of the purposes of life is to develop faith. If we were just given the answer, there would be no faith. Faith is of critical importance in the eternities, it is a crucial aspect of divinity. It was by faith that the universe was made. If we are "gods in embryo", we'd better learn to have faith.
I think that another reason that God doesn't usually come directly to the populace with his message is to protect us. Huh? How does this work?
People tend to be disobedient, and self destructive. Even though we know that smoking is horribly addictive, and almost certainly fatal, lots of people start the habit every day.
If a person were to receive the law directly, from an undisputable divine source, and then they were to break that law, there is no way out for them. They must pay the full consequence of their transgression.
However, if accepting the law requires faith on the part of the recipient, and the faith is lacking, then the veracity of the law is in question to that person. They didn't know for sure that it was valid, so breaking the law carries a lesser penalty.
On the other side of the coin, the blessings that come from obeying a law that requires faith to accept are much greater than the blessings that come from obeying a law that was just given directly.
The LDS Church (Mormon church), is different from traditional Christianity in that we claim that there is again divine relevation. The heavens are open, and God again speaks to man. Therefore, we are NOT completely founded on the Bible, as are most Christian churches. An appeal to the Bible is not our last recourse. (Don't get me wrong, we still believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.)
Some people fault the LDS Church for occasionally changing its official position on various matters (plural marriage comes to mind, the practice ended in the 1800s). This doesn't damage my faith, it strengthens it. When the organization changes and adapts, we don't apologize and say "we were wrong all along," but rather, "The Lord must feel that this is the better course for us now."
Joseph Smith relates this prophesy of himself, given during a visit by a heavenly messenger: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people."
One simple way to help determine if Joseph Smith was a fake is to read the book he translated from ancient gold plates, the "Book of Mormon". (People can visit www.lds.org to get a free copy.)
In summary, I would say that the big difference between "Mormonism" and traditional Christianity is belief in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
\/\/ /-\ [)
Posted by wad (Member # 8605) on :
* Sacred underpants
You are referring to the "temple garment". Wearing special clothing underneath outer clothing sure seems strange to most people. It relates to covenants made in temples. There is a detailed explanation here (be sure to read the last paragraph too): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
* 8 foot tall aliens on the moon * the 12 lost tribes of Israel are living in the North pole sipping on Coconuts.
Is everything a prophet says a prophesy? No, prophets are just men with a special calling. They can make mistakes, and can speak for themselves. Someone once asked Joseph Smith if he thought there were people living on the moon. He said he thought so. And the lost tribes were supposedly in the North Countries, according to the Old Testament, so I suppose the North Pole could be one speculation someone had at some time.
When a prophet is speaking, take care. Is he just talking from his own thoughts? Keep an eye out for a key phrase; If he starts a sentence with "THUS SAITH THE LORD:" then you had better sit up and listen.
\/\/ /-\ [)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If Joseph Smith was a fake, then all these people have been duped. This would probably be the greatest hoax in the history of the world.
Only if all the other religions in the world are true.
quote: One simple way to help determine if Joseph Smith was a fake is to read the book he translated from ancient gold plates, the "Book of Mormon". (People can visit www.lds.org to get a free copy.)
I don't need a vacuum cleaner or new siding, either, thank you very much. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Blayne, one of them is sort of true. However, the others are so outrageous (and that is the point of bringing it up, isn't it, by those hostile to the LDS faith) that I must believe you are lazy for not finding out. At least you asked I suppose, but they seem to be things you can easily find on your own by independant research. Its like telling someone that Jews drink goat blood. A simple search of even the most basic of Jewish writings would show that it doesn't even show up!
Understand that I know it isn't you, but when people ask such silly questions I question their thinking ability. There is no denial that Mormons have views that are strange to outsiders. But frankly outsiders who would study the most isoteric information are flat out stupid and lazy when it comes to the LDS religion. To be honest, the same can be said of people's views of Islam.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: There is probably not a single thing that a Jew can do which is as damaging and offensive to the Jewish People as intermarriage. Nothing else even comes close. Even apostasizing and "converting" to another religion only comes a close second.
If a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, their children aren't Jewish. If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, their children are Jewish, but they are cut off from much of their heritage. And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
See, it isn't just that we don't like it. God commanded it. Now it's true that God commanded a great many things. There are Jews who eat non-kosher food. That's bad. There are Jews who violate the Sabbath. That's really bad. There are Jews who would eat a ham sandwich on Yom Kippur (you're not allowed to eat or drink anything on Yom Kippur). That's extraordinarily bad. But all of those are individual sins, and all can be dealt with on an individual level. None of them are necessarily lasting. Intermarriage creates what we call a bechiya l'dorot, or a weeping for the generations.
I sometimes wonder if the solution to the whole Arab/Jewish problem wouldn't be just to get everyone drunk, lock them into a warehouse and let nature take its course. 70 years down the road, no more Arabs and Jews, just Arews and Jabs that will all live happily ever after.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
AH HA! the gold plates in Redemption Of Christopher Colombus are from Mormon! I love making connections. And these gold plates, can someone give me some history on them?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I decided to startQuestions for Mormons as the topic has become pretty generalized.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Do not worship idols. Do not blaspheme. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit immoral sexual acts (homosexuality is open for debate).
Um... no. Unless you're talking about female homosexuality. There are a very small number of people who hold that the 7 Noachide Laws prohibit sex between women. Almost all authorities say they do not. And there are no dissenting views to the fact that the arayot (which you translated as "immoral sexual acts") include one particular sexual act between men.
I wouldn't label them as "immoral", necessarily, either. "Forbidden", yes, but I don't see anything more immoral about a married woman having sex with a man she isn't married to than a married man having sex with a single woman. The former is "adultery" in terms of Jewish law, and the latter isn't.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Do not be cruel to animals (eating flesh ofliving animal). Maintain courts of justice to uphold the other 6 laws.
Its one of the reasons we don't try to convert people. Non-Jews are supposed to have an easier path to the world to come.
A non-Jew who keeps those seven is on the same level, spiritually speaking, as a Jew who keeps all of ours. Looks like non-Jews are going to be getting most of the good seats in the next world. <sigh>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by trance: One question that always puzzled me about religions is the conditions of being sent to Hell by belief in other faiths.
Jews don't believe there is such a thing as hell. Which is a shame, really, because folks like Hitler, Dahmer, etc, really deserve one.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Hearing the preponderance of denominations as evidence of discord is like seeing the different shops at the food court and assuming that people who eat Wendy's look down on the ones who eat Chick-Fil-A. Not everyone likes the same thing. It doesn't mean we hate each other.
That's about Christian denominations. When it's religions, of course it depends on the religion. As starLisa points out, Jews don't believe in hell (actually, don't some?). Neither do many other religious groups. (And it still doesn't mean we hate each other.)
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
The term "Judaic Christianity" is Bloom's own, as if he didn't bother to learn the correct terminology. We are NOT a return to Christianity as interpreted by those who believed it to be a part of Judaism. What Jews think is irrelevant to our truth claim, as we don't claim to restore any part of their religion as practiced today or by the post-temple rabbis. We are a return to as much as is still applicable of the post-Petrine-vision primitive Christianity - when Christians no longer needed to be circumcised to be Christians, etc.
Nor was our return based on scholarship. If so, we'd be practicing a mishmash of the faulty beliefs about primitive Christianity that were prevalent when JS was alive. Or, worse yet, the just-as-silly version of those who claim to be scholars but have not done their scholarship, in which Christianity is supposedly the invention of Paul. Silly stuff that is defied by the records, but ... The rejection of the neoplatonic western tradition was accomplished as a byproduct of a revealed religion. Nobody in the early Mormon Church had enough of a grounding in western philosophy or theology to realize that was what they were doing, but it was. Nobody who knows what they're talking about, vis-a-vis Mormonism and primitive Christianity, disputes this point. It's so obvious as not to be interesting. For those curious about it, I suggest "How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God" by Richard R. Hopkins. It's from an LDS point of view, but the scholarly reading of the early Church Fathers is sound. It's available in paperback now on Amazon.com
The only disturbing thing to me about this thread, Tom, is your attitude of mockery and lightness about other people's sacred beliefs. That may be your general style in your personal dealings, but it does not come off at all well-meant in the cold print of your postings. And considering that you are posting on a forum of a website owned by a believer in this particular doctrine, it makes your mocking tone very hard to understand. Do you insult everyone whose home you visit, or just me?
I am perfectly happy to have people who don't share my beliefs come here and post as they wish. But I am not happy to have people mock my faith. If you were a guest in my house and spoke the way you have spoken repeatedly and consistently here in this thread - I would not invite you back, and would apologize to my other guests after you left.
Because this is something different from my home, and because I think you aren't actually aware of the deadly insults you offer in your tone and in the substance of some of your remarks, I am NOT asking you to leave. But I am asking you to take the smirk off your face as you write about my religion on my website, and speak with politeness. Or - and here's a thought - maybe you don't have to say every nasty little thing that comes into your mind, and stick only to things you know something about. Mormonism is not one of them. Neither is primitive Christianity. Neither, for that matter, is Judaism as practiced in the early decades CE.
Of course you understand, Tom, that I mean this in the nicest possible way.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I dunno, in a world that contains Blayne Bradley and King of Men, Tom might actually be considered deeply respectful Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The only disturbing thing to me about this thread, Tom, is your attitude of mockery and lightness about other people's sacred beliefs. That may be your general style in your personal dealings, but it does not come off at all well-meant in the cold print of your postings. And considering that you are posting on a forum of a website owned by a believer in this particular doctrine, it makes your mocking tone very hard to understand. Do you insult everyone whose home you visit, or just me?
You know, I can't actually find more than one point in this thread in which my tone has been a mocking one. In fact, it's been very neutral throughout, as far as I can tell -- with the exception of a single response to Wad's overt proselytization, something that you've made a point of discouraging on your site, yourself, for very similar reasons. Nor for that matter can I find a post I've made which has been factually incorrect about Mormonism, primitive Christianity, or early Judaism, except insofar as mainstream historians might have gotten facts considerably wrong; if I err by siding with historians, I am unaware of it.
You know of course that I'm not a Mormon. I'm actually really, really skeptical about the church, and have few qualms about laying out the details of that skepticism when it's relevant. But by and large I respect Mormons and Mormonism -- I like what it does to people, in general, to sum up quickly -- and really have made a good-faith effort to learn as much about it as I think it's reasonable for a non-Mormon non-theologian to pick up through conversation (which is a qualified statement, I'm aware, but anyway.)
Compared to a number of the skeptics we've had on this site over the years, several of whom have been hostile outright, I really don't think my tone ever degrades into "deadly insults." But this may be a cultural issue, as well; I'm aware that there are substantial differences between the way our societies communicate, and it's possible that there are things I've said on this thread which are almost insupportably insulting.
If so, I unreservedly apologize -- and I recognize too that, if so, you really did mean what you wrote in the "nicest possible way." But if you'd be willing, I'd love to hear (by E-mail, if you'd rather not make it public) what I wrote that seemed particularly insulting or mocking to you. Upon hearing your criticism, I've re-read the thread now several times looking for what could have prompted that response, and am coming up empty -- which I'm perfectly willing to admit could be a symptom of my own tin ear. Since I don't intend to insult your religion to your face, I'd like to know what I said that was considered an insult so I can avoid it in the future.
[ September 14, 2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't know whether to be honored Geoffry knows my name or peeved off. I'm not an intentional asshole, I just sometimes dont think.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by trance: One question that always puzzled me about religions is the conditions of being sent to Hell by belief in other faiths.
Jews don't believe there is such a thing as hell. Which is a shame, really, because folks like Hitler, Dahmer, etc, really deserve one.
Actually the thought that they were wiped from existence at death does offer its own appeal.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A non-Jew who keeps those seven is on the same level, spiritually speaking, as a Jew who keeps all of ours. Looks like non-Jews are going to be getting most of the good seats in the next world. <sigh>
Thats why at this point the best I can do is help my fiance and future children follow these laws. My loss shall be their gain.
Posted by wad (Member # 8605) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So, some questions for LDS people: What are the essential differences in LDS and other Christian denominations? [snip the rest]
quote:Originally posted by wad: [a little dab of overt proselytization]
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [snip] ... with the exception of a single response to Wad's overt proselytization, something that you've made a point of discouraging on your site, ... [snip]
Hey, someone asked, okay? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, I had no real problem with it, which is why I was lightheartedly snippy instead of actually critical. I figured it was harmless, but couldn't let it pass completely unscathed. *grin*
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Sorry, Blayne Mormons don't take kindly to "underpants" comments. It's sacrilege almost on par with abusing the name of Sid Meier in front of a gamer ...
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
(And by "almost on par with" I mean "much worse than" )
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yes, I *did* ask, and I got what I wanted! Thanks!
Quibble:
quote:The LDS Church (Mormon church), is different from traditional Christianity in that we claim that there is again divine relevation.
AFAIK no Christian denomination would disagree, although some individual Christians would, except with the implication that there was an interruption. Catholics, for example, believe that we've had divine revelation throughout. Pentecostals look for lots of it. I think most Christians do, in daily life.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Yes, but would these religions call it blasphemous if someone reported a Moses-burning-bush-like experience and said they'd talked with God face to face?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Catholics, for example, believe that we've had divine revelation throughout.
Actually, from my understanding of the Catechism, the Catholic Church specifically DENIES that there has been ANY new revelation since the time of the original Apostles. The Pope doesn't claim to be a Prophet, but an Official Steward and Interpreter of the Knowledge that has already been given.
Is that incorrect?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Taalcon (though Icarus would know better) My understanding is that there are three pillars of revelation in the Catholic church.
1) Bible (including the intertestament books that protestants reject) 2) Traditions of the Church, including the writings of the Doctors of the Church (though this isn't considered sacred scripture like the Bible, however the concepts that the Doctors (theologians) developed from their interpretations may not be expressly spelled out in the Bible. 3) the Pope speaking ex cathedra or "in the seat of Peter" (happens very very rarely, and normally after considerable research and documentation from sources 1 and 2 first. Elevation of Mary to "official" co-redemptrix actually happened relatively recently, with a pope making an ex-cathedra proclamation. However, if you look at Catholic church tradition she has been held at that level in practice for a pretty long time.
AJ
It's more of the harder line non-charismatic protestants that deny "new" revelation. They base this on these verses in Revelation 22 among other places.
quote: 18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (KJV)(
quote:There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium and ecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense of truth in the Church, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditional truth lives and develops in the Church, always the same, at once ancient and new--ancient, for the first Christians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our present ideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life.
(hard-line protestants would call the ongoing process described above "new revelation" even if Catholics believe that the essential repository of Truth is constant... we are and we are just discovering how big it actually is)
AJ
[ September 14, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would say that the vast majority of Christian denominations believe that there still is divine revelation. We/they just don't call it scripture.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Taalcon (though Icarus would know better) My understanding is that there are three pillars of revelation in the Catholic church.
See, as I understood it, the third is not considered a Revelation, just an Authoritative Doctrinal Statement.
Revelation, at least how I'm using it, means new information coming directly from God, not just new insight garnered from studies (although I do believe studies can be condusive to one recieving a revelation).
Tradition (with the Capital T) as I understand it, is basically Oral Scripture/Doctrine that isn't accounted for specifically in any firsthand texts we currently have. Because we don't have the original texts, it isn't as authoritative as Scripture, but because of their importance and sacredness in the History of the Church, they are still followed and believed to be still very authoritative.
The Ex Cathedra statements, as I understand, and as you said, do not come from God directly communicating with the Pope, but are Authoritative Statements and Conclusions being reached based on their understanding of information already had in the Repository.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Talcon, I believe that you are incorrect, though I would defer to any of our Catholic Hatrackers on this point. The emphasis is different – Roman Catholic teaching about revelation concentrates on the idea that the Truth has not changed. It doesn’t deny that God speaks to the pope, (or other contemporary humans) only that God would tell the current pope something contrary to what has previously been revealed. (With the caveat that it may not previously have been understood correctly.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm looking at this and wondering how people think the Catholic Church views the Marian visitations if not as revelation.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Gotcha. I've just been doing a lot of reading of the Catholic Catechism lately, and it seems that they are very picky and careful with terminology, and that it explicitly says that the Deposit of Information has been given, and that nothing new will ever be revealed. New interpretations and understandings may come to light, of course, but everything that will ever need to be known doctrinally has been given, and does exist in the Deposit of Revelation that ended with Christ.
The Catechism, in line 65-67, says the following:
"In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty."
There will be no more Revelation.
"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. There are an awful lot of Catholic saints who would be guilty of foolish behavior and offending God if that statment were strictly interpreted. I suspect a technical definition of CAPITAL "R" Revelation.
Edit: and now you add more and make me look silly. Your added stuff is what I was getting at.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I will say that sometimes trying to comprehend some of the more specific important technical meanings of Catholic terms (Revelation, Person, Substance, etc), while fun, can often result in headaches.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok I don;t think I've ever abused the name Sid Meier, in fact I've always done well as China in civ3. And won consistently in Starcraft.
As for the underpants question, it was an honest question because a friend of mine mentioned it and supposedly believes its some kind of reason to believe that the LDS church is a cult, I wanted to find out if it was true or not to disprove him. In fact as it is I'm gathering people on "the other side" to correspond with once my friend here finishes his list of reasons why Mormons aren't Christians.
BTW: I don't take his view point I'm the guy that walks into their club room and argues with them. But he's still a friend.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So ya sorry if my question was disrectful in anyway and ouch my back is hurting me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Taalcon I believe they got considerably more careful with their technical definiton of "Revelation" after the Protestant reformation.
It's the "making explicit" part where different sects disagree otherwise they wouldn't practice their faith differently... the biggest break of course being when the protestants decided that the pope "making explicit" the revelation wasn't Revelation at all. (but you probably already know all that Taalcon) The true "sola scriptura" fundamentalists don't necessarily think they believe in a "deposit of faith" or Magisterium concept which they believe is "Revelation" outside of that in the Bible itself, even if they still use some commentaries.
I admit that I don't know how different the LDS definition of "Revelation" is different from any of the other definitions either.
AJ
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, having grown up in one, I think many denominations who claim to be 'Sola Scriptura' rely a lot more on Tradition than they realize or will readily admit .
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yep. Martin Luther was convinced that if everyone read the Bible for him(or her?)self every reasonable person would agree what it said/meant. He was demonstrably wrong.
Every reading of scripture is an interpretation, it's just that some people are so ingrained in how their tradition has "always" interpreted that they don't recognize that not everyone sees it that way -- that they're relying on their tradition for their interpretive lens.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I also find it interesting that most of the time the example held up from the Bible, is Phillip and the Ethopian Eunuch. However someone *did* need to explain it to the dude otherwise God wouldn't have sent Phillip. Not to mention the ethiopian guy was only reading the old testament as well.
quote:There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
Edit: fixed the link.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
EDIT: Dagonee fixed the link
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, Catholics, at least, would not call it blasphemous if someone reported a Moses-burning-bush-like experience and said they'd talked with God face to face.
However, the Church might call what was supposedly revealed to be contrary to faith or good morals if it contradicted anything in the public revelations.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
[Ralph Fiennes impression] Blayne, I pardon you Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Dag, I think the LDS church would react in a similar way.
If some random member said they'd seen God and He'd said we could drink alcohol all we wanted, we'd think he was a crackpot.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I hate that the board ate my post! And yet everything I wanted to say has been said better by dkw and Taalcon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I should have stated that as "the Church would call what was supposedly revealed to be contrary to faith or good morals if it contradicted anything in the public revelation."
[ September 15, 2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not trying to gain rhetorical posts, starLisa. Though we have argued in the past, the fact is that you don't know a thing about me, clearly.
My question was an entirely honest one, not at all like the catty one you suggested it was analogous to. It was asked quite simply to understand just how literally you meant to be taken. You have made many statements on Hatrack, in this thread and elsewhere, that I find completely reprehensible. This seemed to be another example, and I wanted to clarify my own understanding of it.
Answer me or don't as you see fit. I consider you a moral sinkhole and won't be too bothered by it either way. But this "I'm answering his question, but not for him, but for everyone else" crap is childish. It's not beneath you, but it ought to be.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
quote: quote: Originally posted by Icarus: quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish. So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism? And is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?
I'm going to answer this for those, other than Icarus, who might actually be interested in an answer, rather than in scoring rhetorical points.
I think there are a ton of non-Jews who have a lot more respect for Jews and Judaism than a Jew who has intermarried. Marrying out demonstrates contempt for Judaism. How do you teach your kids that it's important to follow God's laws when you aren't following them yourself? "Do as I say; not as I do"?
Ouch. Icarus, I love starLisa because I worship intelligence and wit, but I agree with you. starLisa that was harsh. I still think you're awesome but I can't quite figure you out now. At first I thought you were really smart, funny and witty. You are still those things. But I also thought you were not as conservative as you are since you're gay. It just seems odd that you would be so...straight. I'm also glad I'm nowhere near as Jewish as you. I could never do it. So, question-My mom is Jewish and my dad is Christian-and I'm adopted. What am I? I was raised Jewish (not orthodox) ..but I don't practice. Am I still Jewish if I'm adopted?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treason:
quote: quote: Originally posted by Icarus: quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish. So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism? And is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?
I'm going to answer this for those, other than Icarus, who might actually be interested in an answer, rather than in scoring rhetorical points.
I think there are a ton of non-Jews who have a lot more respect for Jews and Judaism than a Jew who has intermarried. Marrying out demonstrates contempt for Judaism. How do you teach your kids that it's important to follow God's laws when you aren't following them yourself? "Do as I say; not as I do"?
Ouch. Icarus, I love starLisa because I worship intelligence and wit, but I agree with you. starLisa that was harsh.
I'm sorry you think so, Treason. I felt that Icarus's automatically assuming that I meant no one who isn't Jewish can respect Judaism was fairly harsh as well. It's not as though Icarus asked what I meant. Or even asked if I meant that.
Despite Icarus's protestations to the contrary, I still think that.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I still think you're awesome but I can't quite figure you out now. At first I thought you were really smart, funny and witty.
<grin> I can be.
But Treason, I'm unwilling to take positions merely because they're comfortable. I stand by my convictions, come what may.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: You are still those things. But I also thought you were not as conservative as you are since you're gay.
Weird, isn't it. But... I mean, what's the connection? Think it through. I'm gay, right? So really, really liberal views would be comfortable for me, since they would remove a lot of pressure for me.
So... should I be the kind of person who changes my values and convictions based, not on reason and justice, but rather on whatever makes life easier for me?
Consider what you know about my convictions, and ask yourself if I could live like that. If I could live with myself after sacrificing my mind to the feelings of others.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: It just seems odd that you would be so...straight.
I know, right?
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I'm also glad I'm nowhere near as Jewish as you. I could never do it. So, question-My mom is Jewish and my dad is Christian-and I'm adopted. What am I? I was raised Jewish (not orthodox) ..but I don't practice. Am I still Jewish if I'm adopted?
Honestly? I don't know. It would depend on whether your birth-mother was Jewish. If she wasn't, then you would have had to have either converted yourself, or have been converted as a child by your parents. And I don't think it's possible for an intermarried couple to find rabbis who will acquiesce to such a conversion.
I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Adopted by a Jewish mother? I found this when asked by somebody else in your position:
According to the Code of Jewish Law (the "Shulchan Aruch"), there are three requirements for a valid conversion. The requirements are:
1) Mitzvahs - He must believe in G-d and the divinity of the Torah, as well as accept upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs (commandments) of the Torah.
2) Milah - Male converts must undergo circumcision by a qualified "Mohel." If he was previously circumcised by a doctor, he then undergoes a ritual called "hatafas dam".
3) Mikveh - All converts must immerse in the Mikveh - a ritual bath linked to a reservoir of rain water.
All of the above must be done before a court of three Jewish men who themselves believe in G-d, accept the divinity of the Torah, and observe the mitzvahs. * * *
In the case of parents converting a child, it is slightly different, because obviously the child cannot fulfill one of the conditions - i.e. accepting upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs. (Only a child of age - i.e. 13 - has the ability to do such a thing.) Therefore, for a child's conversion to be valid, the parent's themselves must agree to observe all 613 mitzvahs. This is the only way it is reasonable to assume that the child will also observe the mitzvahs.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same."
Oh, Lisa. It's not out of ignorance or lack of education. It's called love. I really am glad my grandmother didn't make a huge fuss when my mom married my dad. (she made a small fuss) She realized that he made her happy and they were in love. I Just find it so so weird that you're gay. To me, your view seems so "gays shouldn't marry" or "black should not marry white" I know it's different to you because it's about religion but Christians think the same thing about gay marriage.
And I have to concede one point to you. "The damage done is the same."
I grew up and became more agnostic than anything else. I don't like or agree with any organized religion. Thank god! Give me that kind of damage any day. I am free to love whom I please, think for myself, follow my own moral code, marry whomever I wish and have faith in myself instead of some father figure up in the sky. That is not meant to be insulting at all, it's about how I feel religion normally affects people. I still think you're cool, Lisa. Just way to straight for me. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: In the case of parents converting a child, it is slightly different, because obviously the child cannot fulfill one of the conditions - i.e. accepting upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs. (Only a child of age - i.e. 13 - has the ability to do such a thing.) Therefore, for a child's conversion to be valid, the parent's themselves must agree to observe all 613 mitzvahs. This is the only way it is reasonable to assume that the child will also observe the mitzvahs.
Right. One other thing, though. Unlike regular conversion, a minor who has been converted can choose at the age of bar or bat mitzvah (12 years and a day for girls and 13 years and a day for boys) to refuse the conversion. If they do so, the conversion is nullified retroactively. If they do nothing, the conversion sticks.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Just wanted to clarify something: I didn't agree with everything Icarus said. I didn't want you to think that, Lisa. I just thought you were to harsh before.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treason: "I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same."
Oh, Lisa. It's not out of ignorance or lack of education. It's called love.
<sigh> Treason, it's both. You don't walk down the street and fall in love with someone walking past you. That's cool for movies, but you can't fall in love with someone unless you get to know them intimately.
Someone who is really committed to Judaism and their Jewish heritage just isn't going to put themselves in that situation.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I really am glad my grandmother didn't make a huge fuss when my mom married my dad. (she made a small fuss) She realized that he made her happy and they were in love. I Just find it so so weird that you're gay.
Really? I mean, it's not like I'm politically gay. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hmm... what can I do to be counter culture and piss people off and make people hate me? Hey, I know! I'll be gay!"
That said, I'm not at all sorry that I am gay. A group of Orthodox Jewish lesbians I used to be a member of had a discussion once about what they would do if there was a "magic pill" that would make them straight. Most of them said they'd take it in a heartbeat. Me? I'd seal it in lead and drop it into the Marianas Trench. It doesn't make my life any easier, but it's who I am. I'd be a completely different person otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: To me, your view seems so "gays shouldn't marry"
Except for the whole getting my head bashed in thing in the "OSC and Gays" thread for arguing for gay marriage, I guess.
But if you want a seeming contradiction, I absolutely think that marriage should be recognized exactly equally by the government regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex. They should either recognize both or keep out of it altogether. With the latter being my preference.
On the other hand, I fought hard against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I am inalterably opposed to any laws which dictate who may or may not or must or must not rent/do business with/socialize with/hire whom.
If I get hired, and the contract says nothing about gay or not gay, and my employer fires me when he finds out I'm gay, that's a contract violation, and I'll fight it. If he refuses to hire me up front because I'm gay, I'll think he's an ass, and if I'm sufficiently upset, I'll try and organize people to boycott his business, or him personally, but I would never in a billion years try to take legal action against him.
Now... I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer this. But knowing what you've expressed about Rand's writing and philosophy, but being far more "liberal" than I am, what's your take on that issue? Should someone be forced by law to hire me and trade for my services if they don't want to?
quote:Originally posted by Treason: or "black should not marry white" I know it's different to you because it's about religion but Christians think the same thing about gay marriage.
I'm against having same sex marriage in Judaism, too. Look, think of it this way: I am honestly, intellectually convinced that there really is a God, and that He really did give us the Torah and the system by which it is to be applied. I really think that things the Torah says are wrong are wrong, and that things the Torah says are right are right.
From that place, what I may think about same sex marriage in Judaism is utterly irrelevant. If I ever got to create the universe, maybe I'd do it differently. But that's not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: And I have to concede one point to you. "The damage done is the same."
I grew up and became more agnostic than anything else. I don't like or agree with any organized religion. Thank god! Give me that kind of damage any day. I am free to love whom I please, think for myself, follow my own moral code, marry whomever I wish and have faith in myself instead of some father figure up in the sky.
See, but the god you don't buy, I don't buy either. The whole Santa Claus on a throne with a lightning bolt in one hand and a bag of goodies in the other seems more than childish to me. I follow the laws God gave us not because I'm afraid of getting struck down, and not because my invisible friend told me to. I do it because I have sufficient cause to be convinced that what God says is forbidden is really a bad thing, and that what God says is required is really a necessary thing.
I never had a "personal revelation", and I didn't get invited to someone's home for Shabbat and get an attack of the warm fuzzies. If I didn't think it was for real and true, I wouldn't waste my time on it.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: That is not meant to be insulting at all, it's about how I feel religion normally affects people. I still think you're cool, Lisa. Just way to straight for me.
<grin> Vanilla dykes unite!
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm sorry you think so, Treason. I felt that Icarus's automatically assuming that I meant no one who isn't Jewish can respect Judaism was fairly harsh as well. It's not as though Icarus asked what I meant. Or even asked if I meant that.
Despite Icarus's protestations to the contrary, I still think that.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism?
Believe what you want. I think it's pretty clear I was asking if you believed what you had obviously implied, or if I was misinterpreting you. But you've made it pretty clear that your specialty is assuming you know what people really intend, despite whatever they say to the contrary. It's one of the things I despise about you. (But I'll throw back at you something you've said to me. Do you really think, based on our conversations, that if I wanted to be insulting to you I would be indirect about it?)
For what it's worth, I misspoke when I called you a moral sinkhole. I don't really think you are immoral, but merely so narcissistic and immature that you can only perceive the world in the way that will make you feel heroic, etc. Amoral bordering on sociopathic, but I guess not so much immoral. Not that you care (obviously). I'm ammending what I said merely for clarity's sake--I misspoke and I feel the need to correct it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goo Boy: For what it's worth, I misspoke when I called you a moral sinkhole. I don't really think you are immoral, but merely so narcissistic and immature that you can only perceive the world in the way that will make you feel heroic, etc. Amoral bordering on sociopathic, but I guess not so much immoral. Not that you care (obviously). I'm ammending what I said merely for clarity's sake--I misspoke and I feel the need to correct it.
I'm not amoral. I'm im(GooBoy)moral. I simply reject the ethics that you seem to be championing here. The funny thing is that you call me narcissitic, but you're willing to use the term "amoral" to describe someone who doesn't subscribe to your moral view. It isn't a GooBoy-centric universe.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Hmm . . . That actually suggests a rather interesting question. I am not a moral relativist, and I suspect you would say you are not either. Our moralities, such as they are, clearly do not coincide, however. Is someone who is not a moral relativist narcissistic (since, after all, everyone generally believes his or her beliefs are correct)? I don't think so, but I guess one could make a convincing argument that the answer is yes.
In any case, let me clarify: I don't call you a narcissist because you subscribe to a different morality or reject my own. I call you a narcissist because you generally insist you know other people's motivations better than they themselves do, even to the extent of contradicting their claims otherwise. I generally ask people what they mean, or if they mean what I think they mean. Or, at the very least, if they tell me I have misinterpreted, I take their word for it (though I certainly may ask for clarification).
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"Now... I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer this. But knowing what you've expressed about Rand's writing and philosophy, but being far more "liberal" than I am, what's your take on that issue? Should someone be forced by law to hire me and trade for my services if they don't want to?"
The two sides of my personality still fight over that one. I've thought it over quite a bit and I can tell you, I just don't know. You're not the only one who is a bundle of (seeming) contradictions. If I had to answer right away I would say "It's wrong to force an employer to hire anyone they don't want to." But... Well, I'm sure you can guess how I go back and forth on that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
I tip my hat off to you Mr. Card
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Though we have argued in the past, the fact is that you don't know a thing about me, clearly.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's not out of ignorance or lack of education.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)