I know one difference between LDS and other Christian denominations, of course: the Book of Mormon. But LDS people have suggested there's a basic philosophical difference, and I think it's to relate to Greek philosophy. Mormons here: what's that difference? Or have I heard wrong?
(I tried to read the book How Greek Philosophy Corrupted Christianity (title may be wrong), but it wasn't exactly clear.)
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You mean this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:what's that difference?
How long do you have? That's a big question.
Do you have specific questions?
One obvious difference is in the nature of God. Instead of believing that he is everywhere and nowhere, we believe that he is a single being with a physical body that is in one specific location at a time. We also believe that the trinity (Father, Son , and Holy Ghost) is three separate beings, united in purpose.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You haven't heard wrong, but it is not exactly clear in LDS thinking either how much philosophy has to do with the difference. I am one of the majority who feel that the introduction of Greek philosophy was part of what Mormons consider "The Great Apostacy," or losing of vital theology and religious authority.
The idea goes something like this. When Christianity was first introduced there was a distinct relationship existing between it and Judeaism. The first "attack" had to do with the new teachings themselves. Many concepts of Jewish practices were no longer considered religiously important. There was a movement within the earliest Christian church to remain practically Jewish. The Christian leaders, although sympethetic at first, began to see the most Jewish members as rejecting fundimental differences. Particularly, they thought living the strict laws of Moses were against the beliefs that Jesus died for the Sins of humanity. This much many non-LDS scholars more or less acknowledge.
Where Mormons start having a different interpretation is the introduction of Christianity to a pagan world. This had an even more profound effect as ideas were introduced by Greek influenced members. Paul wasn't imune to this as he tried to explain Christian concepts in Greek terms. Trying to bridge the gap for understanding shouldn't be a bad thing.
However, members started to do more than just explain things in a way that could be better understood. They introduced Greek philosophies that "explained away" original Christian teachings. Over time, Mormons believe, Christian theology was replaced by Greek philosophy. The ultimate finish to original Christianity was Constantine and the development of official creeds.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Is there any connection between Mohammed being born in 570 and precisely 1260 years later Joseph Smith starting the Mormon church?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have to say the same thing. No. I am not even sure where that question is coming from.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
One time I took some really good LSD and couldn't stop philosophizing all night. Oh wait...i misread your title. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: we believe that he is a single being with a physical body that is in one specific location at a time.
Is that found in the Book of Mormon or is that an interpretation of things in the Bible?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Yes. And more.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Yes to which one.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
That particular bit of doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon, book of Doctrines and Covenants as well as interpretation of certain Bible passages.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator:
quote: we believe that he is a single being with a physical body that is in one specific location at a time.
Is that found in the Book of Mormon or is that an interpretation of things in the Bible?
It's mostly from the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of scriptures containing modern (1800s and later) revelations.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Would you know off the top of your head which passages in the Bible refer to that? I'd like to take a look.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
That's one of the things I can't stand about (non-Mormon) Christianity, especially Catholicism: so many of its teachings are based, not on the Bible or ancient Christian traditions, but on "right reasoning" that is only one of many possible accounts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Omega, please consider for a moment how you would feel about a post beginning "That's one of the things I can't stand about Mormonism . . ." and then making a gross generalization about your religion.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Zgator- I suppose that I should once again make explicit the obvious disclaimer that these passages could easily be (and are) interpreted differently than they are by LDS:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all he earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (see also Genesis 5:1, 9:6)
Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Phillip 2: 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Hebrews 1:2-3 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
James 3:9 herewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
First epistle of John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Omega- that was a rather silly thing to say in polite company.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's one of the things I can't stand about (non-Mormon) Christianity, especially Catholicism: so many of its teachings are based, not on the Bible or ancient Christian traditions, but on "right reasoning" that is only one of many possible accounts.
I'd be interested to see a list of Catholic teachings that are based on "right reasoning" and also not grounded in the Bible or ancient Christian tradition.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Dag- if I were you I would just ignore that foolish thing that Omega said. Otherwise it is sure to do nothing more than start a row.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Thanks Jacare. Reading through those, I can see how they could be interpreted differently. Of course, that goes for much of the Bible.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, okay, it won't happen again. Geez.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me point out that our belief that God has a physical body doesn't come from interpretation of the Bible -- it comes from clear and explicit passages in the Doctrine and Covenants, and then we interpret the Bible accordingly.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Let me point out that our belief that God has a physical body doesn't come from interpretation of the Bible -- it comes from clear and explicit passages in the Doctrine and Covenants, and then we interpret the Bible accordingly.
I thought is came from the First Vision, which predates the D&C.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:One obvious difference is in the nature of God. Instead of believing that he is everywhere and nowhere, we believe that he is a single being with a physical body that is in one specific location at a time. We also believe that the trinity (Father, Son , and Holy Ghost) is three separate beings, united in purpose.
So is that the heart of the difference?
(Yes, I know you could spend the length of a dissertation discussing this stuff, but . . . as Einstein said, you don't understand something till you can explain it to a five-year-old. He exaggerated, but still, simplicity is good.)
If these are the major difference . . . do Mormons consider them significant? Maybe I would if I thought about the implications.
[ March 31, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
As a Mormon myself, I don't think they are all that significant. I know that some Christian denominations find them extremely significant, however.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The significant differences in Mormon Theology is not about how they (Mormons) perceive God, but rather the belief that God restored the power to act in his name (govern his "true" church) to the church leadership. Portions of this priesthood power percolates down to worthy male members.
The difference, from an LDS perspective, is about keys of the Priesthood being restored. It is usually non-Mormons who want to paint Mormons as not christians because of their perception of God. You need to understand "Restoration" if you want to understand Mormonism.
Edit: to clarify.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another significant difference is the omnipotence of God. *tags someobdy else to explain*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not really that interested in the differences between the IPU and the FSM, so I won't be contributing anything constructive to the thread; but can I have some kudos for not dobie-ing it with "Philosophy and LSD"?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
No. Because that would be a good dobie.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
To be precise, Mormonism rejects the application of Platonic reasoning about the nature of God that thinkers such as Augustine and Justin Martyr applied - that is, that God, as Anselm put it, "was that which nothing greater than could be imagined." This sort of reasoning naturally led to a rejection of an embodied God, as well as a God outside time, omnipotent, omniscient, etc, who makes the laws of the universe rather than being bound by them. Orson Pratt, a nineteenth century apostle, once proclaimed that God knew the future and was chastised in a formal letter from the First Presidency for it. Rather, I think traditional Mormon thought is that God knows all that there is to be known, and can do all that can be done, but there are natural laws governing both.
This is tremendously important, because the classic Christian view implies that there is an ontological division between God and man which the Mormon doctrine of deity denies - God and man in Mormonism are fundamentally of the same kind.
There has been, in the past eighty or ninety years or so, a movement that some people have dubbed Mormon neo-orthodoxy - embracing the otherness of God and re-applying to Him those principles of omniscience and omnipotence that were not present in earlier Mormon thought, like that of Brigham Young, Talmage, Widtsoe and BH Roberts. The main figures here are Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Neal Maxwell. I would say that it's been fairly influential in popular Mormon thought. I also think that this is something of a consequence of the we're-not-weird campaign, Mormonism's quest to integrate itself with the larger Christian community and downplay differences.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:There has been, in the past eighty or ninety years or so, a movement that some people have dubbed Mormon neo-orthodoxy - embracing the otherness of God and re-applying to Him those principles of omniscience and omnipotence that were not present in earlier Mormon thought...I would say that it's been fairly influential in popular Mormon thought.
This is what Matt told me when I expressed the opinion that God knowing what we will choose and us having free will are simultaneously possible.
After a little bit of hashing, it became clear that the reason I think that's possible is because I think that God knows what our future selves have chosen, not necessarily what we will choose. It isn't foreknowledge, because he knows what we have chosen only because our future selves have already chosen it. So he simultaneously exists now, when we are unaware of what we will do, and in the very future, after we have made our decisions. That way, we are still choosing without pressure, but God can provide comfort and guidance to prepare us now for what will be coming.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The problem with that is that it assumes God is outside time, which I don't accept. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right, and I think he is, so it all works out for me. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Side note: Does anyone else pronounce the thread starter's name as "Willoughby"?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I wonder how the idea of progress can be attributed to a God who stands outside of time. Progress is necessarily a linear concept.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clearly at Level Ten, one of the skills gained is "be outside of time."
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Aw, see, I think that's too easy. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's a dragon at the end of level nine. It isn't easy at all!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: I wonder how the idea of progress can be attributed to a God who stands outside of time. Progress is necessarily a linear concept.
I don't think that our minds are currently equipped to understand what anything would be like ouside of time.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
<--- enjoying this emmensely.
FWIW, I'm with Matt on this. Sorry, Katie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's okay, Taalcon. You don't have to agree with me.
Posted by JoeH (Member # 5958) on :
Didn't the missionary discussions (back in 92-94 at least) say that God was omnipotent and omniscient?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We say that all the time, but we don't use the work in the exact same way. By omnipotent we don't mean "capable of doing anything" but "capable of doing anything that can be done".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think so, although I can't check because I packed away my discussions last night.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We say that all the time, but we don't use the word in the exactly same way. By omnipotent we don't mean "capable of doing anything" but "capable of doing anything that can be done".
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Didn't the missionary discussions (back in 92-94 at least) say that God was omnipotent and omniscient?
Yes they did. I went on a Mission in 94-96 and both those words were in my discussions. I remember clearly because I thought both words were super cool in both Korean and English.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm with Katie, for specific reasons that have to do with specific experiences I have had.
I used to think because the universe itself is indeterminate, that the future doesn't exist yet, and so it is unknowable. However, God contradicted me on this a few times, and I now stand corrected.
The theory I formed to explain this is that God is outside our time. He may have his own timeline or something, maybe. One way to picture what I mean might be to imagine a huge simulation (in which we each play ourselves) running on God's computer. Though we have complete free agency inside the timeline of the program, God could be outside our timeline and able to examine the entire run at will. He might even tweak things here and there (like changing the exact details of the random quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, for instance) and those tweaks could bubble up (via the butterfly effect) into macro effects. In this manner he could fine-tune this magnificent work of art we are all making together, the history of time and space in this universe. To us while we're in our corporeal material manifestation inside the run, we just experience this inside time, and don't notice if he halts the run, or tweaks things, or whatever.
All this is my fancy, and not any formal doctrine. Also, it's totally metaphorical, since we likely don't have the concepts necessary to understand what's really happening. But that's sort of how I think of it. I am willing to coexist peacefully with others who see things differently, and for sure don't want to fight any religious wars over it.
Another analogy might be when I'm practicing a piece on the piano, I have a lot of stops and starts, I might go back and practice one segment over and over, or slow down to half speed to work on a tricky bit of fingerwork. To someone outside in world-time, it sounds horrible and annoying, but to me my brain is stitching the parts together, and I'm experiencing the piece in the inner musical time of the work itself. So to me it might sound really good. And despite the fact that I know from the score how it ends, I experience the suspensions, the build-ups, and all the dynamics, as they happen. They surprise me to the extent that I still find them enjoyable. So again that's a different analogy to how different timeframes can interact.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would say that God lives inside linear time, but he Experiences time in a completely uncomprehensible (for mortals) way. One way of saying this is that I believe God lives the ultimate Einstinian time-space existance. Tatiana's examples are pretty close to my own theories on the subject.
One of my favorite "time is relative for God" scriptures is Alma 13 where the first verse asks the listeners to look forward to an event of the past. This might seem to make no sense, but it does when looking at the whole chapter. The next verses talk about something that has happened in the past "prepared from the foundation of the world" in present terms. Then in vs. 13 the tense changes to present choices that could effect the future. And what happens in the future, according to the verses before, is the possibility of joining an event from the past. As a side note, its a great chapter for showing that the idea of a pre-mortal life is taught in the Book of Mormon.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
lem> I guess this thread isn't too old. Can you expand on the "keys of the priesthood" business? How is it different from, say, the concept of Apostolic Succession?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Are you people trying to tempt me out of inactivity?
:::shakes his fist.
-----------
Jacare: I think that the neo-Orthodox response would be that God *doesn't* progress -- only his works do. Isn't that what the whole letter from Bruce. R. McConkie to Eugene England was about?
-------- Kat and Tatiana:
Okay, so I understand that your view of God outside-of-time is to reconcile that with your understanding of God and foreknowledge -- and that your form of foreknowledge takes a particularly 'strong' form.
How do you then reconcile that view with the concept of free will (or agency, rather)?
I'm still quite hazy on all of this myself.
I'm curious about what others say because it seems like I go in one direction and I get hung up on foreknowledge, and I go in another and I get hung up on free will.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't see a conflict with free will. We have free will inside our timeline. He can, from his perspective outside our timeline, see what we chose to do. We are free moral agents, but part of the veil that was drawn across our memory or understanding when we were born constrains us to think, feel, and act inside the timeline of this material universe. I believe some time after the resurrection when we have perfected bodies, we will not be so constrained.
[ April 03, 2006, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Another really big philosophical difference that hasn't been explored too well in this thread is the belief we LDS have that we can become someday as God is now. That we can "grow up" spiritually into godlike beings. We believe we are the literal children of God (spirit children), and so we have the potential to become like him, have our own spirit children, and so on forever.
The doctrine doesn't go into the cosmology or astronomy of things, but the way I picture it, this particular big bang, including our planet, our galaxy (of ~100 billion stars) and all the other galaxies (about 200 billion in the observable universe, each roughly like ours), with whatever untold countless intelligent species there may be living here, is God's. When we grow up we get to make our own, with whatever physical laws we want (constrained by what's possible and what will provide fertile territory for spirit children to live in), and basically design our own everything. If we have gripes or suggestions for God about life, the universe, and everything, we will get our chance to do him one better.
We will have to actually learn how to do all this. Don't think we're going to be waving any magic wands. It's all about physics, engineering, and every other science including those of the heart, mind, and spirit. I think we get some early practice eons earlier (in our distant future) by designing ourselves the perfected bodies we want to have. There's a whole WHOLE lot we have to learn before we're qualified to do this. Parenthood here is one of our early lessons, playing god, and pet ownership (sic) as well. But like, we need to get busy because there's a long way we have to go.
Again, this specific understanding is Tatiana's current theory, not taught by the church, and subject to change as I learn more. What the church teaches is that we are the spirit children of a loving father, whom we call God, and that if we accept the gift of Christ's atonement, and work diligently, remaining faithful to the end, then we can become exalted as he is, and have our own spirit children someday.
I think that's one of the coolest things about the LDS church! I can't wait! So far I am a pretty sucky human being, even, so I know I have a long way to go before I'm ready for godhood. But I think it's going to be great fun. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:The doctrine doesn't go into the cosmology or astronomy of things,
I think I'd have to disagree with that a little bit. There is definitely some cosmology in the doctrine.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dave, is there? You've probably studied it better than I. Tell us about the cosmology of it. I was thinking of like big bang physics, matter-energy coupling, string theory multiverses, and technical stuff like that.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Abraham chapter 3. That's all I have to say right now.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:lem> I guess this thread isn't too old. Can you expand on the "keys of the priesthood" business? How is it different from, say, the concept of Apostolic Succession?
I am not lem, but I think I will try to answer the question. The "Keys of the Priesthood" are basically the power given to man to do the Work of God. It includes the permission to do the ordinances of the Gospel; such as baptism, ordination, Communion, some kinds of special prayers, and administering Temple activities.
In some ways it isn't much different from Apostolic Succession. Those who have the Priesthood are given the power to give Priesthood to others. This can be traced back to the Apostles Peter, James, and John. That is where the difference ends.
For Mormons that connection doesn't start from the time of these Apostles' lives. It starts almost 2000 years later with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John gave the Priesthood to them as Resurrected Angels. From them, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey gave the Priesthood to others.
quote:I'm curious about what others say because it seems like I go in one direction and I get hung up on foreknowledge, and I go in another and I get hung up on free will.
I think it is both. I don't say that I understand the relationship, but it seems to me fee will and foreknowledge work together. My earlier Book of Mormon reference, for instance, shows a fine line between them. Because of the many times Scripture seems to talk about both almost at the same time, I don't discount the possibility both are functions of Eternal reality.
Taalcon, I was thinking the same thing.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I would argue that the term "foreknowledge" refers to God's knowledge of his own plans and what he will do. This is different from foreordination, which refers to human beings, and which, I think, is predicated upon us making the choices necessary to achieve the possibilities foreordination creates. As my favorite reference on this, D&C 3, indicates, Joseph Smith had several paths before him. He could have fallen, and those verses after 7 clearly outline multiple possibilities, any of which God could work with. As the first verses indicate, God's foreknowledge ensured preparation for all of them - and presumably, every other - eventuality. God is like a master chess player - he knows us and he knows this world well enough to see further ahead than we can imagine. His plans do not depend on knowing exactly what we'll do.
All this, of course, is predicated upon God being in time, a belief I base upon 1)Doctrines of divine progression that Smith, Young, Roberts and multiple other Mormon authorities have taught (a doctrine which by its nature requires time), 2)upon numerous scriptures referring to time passing for God, God learning of something, etc. (the famous 'weeping God passages in Moses are a particularly beautiful example of this), 3)Upon Mormon doctrine of man - we are, we are told, not God's creations, but co-eternal with him; this, for me, clearly precludes his ability to know what we _will_ do - we are not puppets, and I believe we retain the capacity to surprise him (in theory, though I also believe that he knows us well enough that no glory we achieve will do so), and 4) Mormon doctrine of limited diety - if God is of a kind with us, different primarily in his exalted command of natural law, I think that time is among those natural laws by which God is bound. "Outside time" simply smacks of a degree of supernaturalism that doesn't follow for me.
Classical Christian theology maintains that this is the paradox of the Incarnation - the absolute Other becoming flesh; eternity and time intersecting. I think there's something to it - there's a danger in over-naturalizing diety, and the drama and romanticism of religion is among the things that appeals to me. Despite the stark beauty of the Incarnation as resolved paradox, though, I think clinging to an atemporal God is an unnecessary remnant of Platonic and creedal Christianity that Mormon theology doesn't need. Mormonism is cool enough without it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, if the Bajoran Prophets can exist outside linear time . . .
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Dave, is there? You've probably studied it better than I. Tell us about the cosmology of it. I was thinking of like big bang physics, matter-energy coupling, string theory multiverses, and technical stuff like that.
quote:Abraham chapter 3.
I don't know that it's technical enough for what you were thinking of, Tatiana, but there is also one of my favorite hymns. Which is not sung often enough, unfortunately.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I think clinging to an atemporal God is an unnecessary remnant of Platonic and creedal Christianity that Mormon theology doesn't need.
Just to clarify - there _are_ texts in Mormon scripture that can be interpreted to support timeless deity. So, while I think the bulk of the evidence is against it, neither position is official doctrine, and decency and humanity can be found on both sides. Mark Leone says that Mormonism is a "do-it-yourself theology." Straight up.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Even if it's not true, I find it a useful crutch/metaphor.
BTW, I am currently learning to play that hymn on the guitar.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Occasional> Thanks...that about clears it up. I was wondering if there were any additional elements to the concept that would put a different spin on it. (Never had much to do with Succession myself.)
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
“. . . basic philosophical difference, and I think it's to relate to Greek philosophy . . .”
If you define “basic philosophical difference” as a difference in specific doctrines that are taught, then I’d say that some of our doctrines are different and some are the same as those taught in various other Christian churches. We would have to take each specific example and examine it.
But I’m going to approach this in the context of the question of whether or not, and to what extent, Greek or any other philosophy has been adopted by Christendom. Or in other words: What is the LDS philosophy about Philosophy?
You all will have to judge to what extent it differs from other folk’s beliefs.
Our belief is that there are universal truths, and that God has revealed many of those truths to prophets. That is what we Mormons emphasize and rely on.
Of course the question immediately arises: How do you KNOW that any given statement of “fact” is God’s own truth or just a philosophy of a man? Well, that’s the zillion dollar question, isn‘t it. I’m not going to try to answer it. I’m just saying that we reject any philosophy that contradicts what we believe to have been revealed by God.
In that respect, we are no different from other Christian churches. We all claim to believe in the WORD OF GOD. The differences are in what each of us accept as scripture. True, there are fringe groups at each end of the belief spectrum. But generally speaking Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom God restored the church and true doctrines that Jesus established anciently, and that there have been living prophets ever since who have received additional truths from time to time as the need arose. (We just finished having our semi-annual General Conference in which we were taught what God has to say to us for the next six months.)
The result is that we have four books of scripture and ongoing proclamations from our prophets to use as a yardstick in which to compare other philosophies. Whereas most other Christians believe that the Bible is the only yardstick that is needed.
I have friends in other Christian churches who do a pretty good job of using the Bible to sort out the truth or falsehood of various world philosophies. We do debate back and forth from time to time about the relative merits of various interpretations of various points of doctrine. We go back an forth about whether or not some of their or some of my interpretations have been influenced by non-Christian philosophers.
A couple of the things that we do agree on, however, is that there are some folks claiming to be Christians who have clearly adopted non-Christian philosophies into their belief systems. One example is that there is a prevalent belief among some “Christians” that Jesus was just a great philosopher and not the Son of God and not the Savior. Therefore the Bible is at best just a bunch of moral tales that we can take or leave according to our fancy, and that there was no such thing as the Atonement. They have no qualms about adopting any secular philosophy that sounds good that month.
Another thing we agree on is that there is a popular fable that somehow crept into Christendom a long time ago. What, pray tell, does a rabbit hiding eggs have to do with Christ, the Atonement, and Easter? Rabbits don’t even lay eggs, for crying out loud! Is there anyone who actually believes there is anything Biblical about the Easter Bunny? I don’t particularly have a problem with folks using that symbol and letting their kids goof around coloring eggs and hiding them and stuff, just as long as they make it clear to their kids that any Christian meaning attached to it has been contrived by man and not revealed by God.
I could list a bunch of other symbols used by Christians that are in the same category. But I won’t. My point is that it is a constant struggle to sort out what is true and what isn’t, what is set in stone and what is open to interpretation. The LDS philosophy is that, if it was revealed by God, live it. If God hasn’t revealed any information about a particular subject then I’m free to draw my own tentative conclusions. But if it contradicts the revealed Word, reject it.
Following are some of our LDS scriptures and other writings on the subject. I can’t vouch for how most other Christians view this subject.
“It is a remarkable fact that the philosophies of the ancient world, notwithstanding the gigantic intellects that originated them, led to materialism, pantheism, fatalism, atheism, and pride, while the philosophy of this wonderful volume, the Doctrine and Covenants, leads men to trust in God, . . .“ (from the “Doctrine and Covenants Commentary” section 93 pp 595)
(It is pretty clear that we believe that non-Christian philosophies have crept into Christendom.) When God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and told him not join any of the churches of the day, Jesus said, “ . . . they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:19)
(We believe that education is important, that there is much wisdom to be found in the world, but it is vital that we don’t let ourselves be misled into sin by the philosophies of men.)
“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;” (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 109:7)
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28 - 29)
“For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:44 - 45)
“And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;” (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:24)
A government official once asked the Prophet Joseph Smith how he was able “to govern so many people” and “preserve such perfect order.” The Prophet replied, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves” (as quoted by John Taylor, “The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, 15 November 1851, 339).
“True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Do Not Fear,” Ensign, May 2004, 77)
Sam
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The result is that we have four books of scripture and ongoing proclamations from our prophets to use as a yardstick in which to compare other philosophies. Whereas most other Christians believe that the Bible is the only yardstick that is needed.
I doubt this is true. It's certainly not for Catholics, members of the Orthodox Church, and many members of the Anglican Communion, which is enough to refute the "most" in your statement. Further, I'm not sure if your statement would be accurate for all Protestants who subscribe to sola scriptura.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not true for United Methodists. "Sola Scriptura" refers to the idea that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation. For decision-making, we use the wesleyan quadrilateral -- Scripture, Tradition*, Reason, and Experience.
*Tradition refers to the teachings of the Christian church through the ages, not "but we've always done it that way!"
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's close enough, for such Protestants. As some band in the 80's sang: "It makes no difference what you've heard/Find it in the Word."
Words are imprecise. "Only yardstick that is needed": I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Bible is viewed as a sufficient guide to, say, cloning, or how to deal with Iraq! (Or if anyone does, he isn't being honest: he's putting loads of interpretation on it and pretending not to.) I was Protestant most of my life, and I'd say I thought of it as the only reliable yardstick. Come to think of it, I still do, although I'm Catholic now. I lend heavy credence to the Catechism, but I don't consider it infallible. (It does keep changing.)
--
Value of external philosophies: certainly St. Paul warns us about "vain" ones. I think there are also some that can inform us, as most other believers thru history have. Aristotle seems useful for understanding classification, and his ideas work well with machine learning today; his poetics work well today with fiction. Lao Tse, IMJ, had some horribly Machiavellian advice about government, but he was right about the difficulty of encoding moral behavior. And Plato just drives me crazy .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's what I thought, dkw, but I didn't want trust myself to explain the difference between the self-described "bible-believing*" churches and those closer to the original understanding of sola scriptura.
* Obviously I know other churches (including my own) can aptly be desceibed as bible-believing but, much like "creationism," it has been given a more specific meaning by some.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:"Sola Scriptura" refers to the idea that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation.
I would say this is the major difference between Mormons and most other religions. Mormons believe strongy that the Bible does NOT contain everything necessary for salvation. In fact, no scripture contains everything necessary for salvation, as "salvation" is considered an ongoing process.
I will do another comparison, and one that I think Samuel is trying explain. Tradition, Reason, and Experience are considered false ways to the truth. For decision making Mormons use Revelation, Authority, and Scriptures. Tradition is considered blinding, Reason is considered materialistic, and Experience is considered questionable. That doesn't mean Mormons are not supposed to use them. Rather, they are just not for decision making on what is the Truth on anything spiritual.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would say this is the major difference between Mormons and most other religions.
"Sola scriptura" is not subscribed to by half or more of the world's Christians.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Whereas for UMs, scripture, tradition and experience all contain revelation, and "authority" (except for God) is not applicable. It's refered to as the priesthood of all believers -- no person, by virtue of their "authority" is assumed to have greater access to God/truth/revelation.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Tradition, Reason, and Experience are considered false ways to the truth. For decision making Mormons use Revelation, Authority, and Scriptures. Tradition is considered blinding, Reason is considered materialistic, and Experience is considered questionable.
I don't think I agree. I could point to any number of traditions that are enshrined in daily Mormon practice - indeed, Mormonism's very liturgy is lifted, complete with hymns, from the Protestant tradition. Ages of ordination in the priesthood are entirely tradition - you won't find them anywhere in scripture. Even the priesthood ban was a tradition rather than doctrine - David O. McKay was very clear about that.
Further, there is a powerful tradition in Mormonism of reason as a means to unearthing divine truths - Mormonism holds that God is disoverable in the natural world and works in rational, predictable ways through Puritan-style covenant theology. As I indicated before, Mormon neo-orthodoxy might contest the natural theology tradition, but the position I cite was dominant for the first hundred years or so of Mormonism, and strong strains of it remain. Brigham Young was quite explicit about joining the Mormons because Joseph Smith's theology explained God in a rational way. Parley and Orson Pratt were only the first theologians to attempt to reconcile science with religion, a trend that continued through Talmage, Widstoe, and Roberts, down through Hugh Nibley's lectures on the temple to the Twelve and Cleon Skousen's atonement theory in the eighties.
Finally, the very spread of Mormonism is based upon religious experience - the experience of conversion. I'm of course using the word 'experience' in the way that Wesley or Edwards might - though the ecstatic experience is greatly subdued in modern day Mormonism - and I suppose Occ might be using it in a different way. On thinking about it, actually, I think that Mormons would use the term 'revelation' to describe what are traditionally called conversion experiences.
I do agree with this:
quote:Mormons believe strongy that the Bible does NOT contain everything necessary for salvation. In fact, no scripture contains everything necessary for salvation, as "salvation" is considered an ongoing process.
I'm not sure how unique it actually is though.
[ April 05, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't see how the Bible containing all that is necessary for salvation precludes the idea that salvation is an ongoing process.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I don't think it does.
I think what he means is that for Mormons, salvation incorporates things not spelled out in the Bible. That's how I understood it, anyway.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I think I pretty much agree with MattB's take on foreknowledge above, but would add that I do find the objection to this argument -- one TomD has brought up before here, I believe (and one that some Mormon thinkers have also invoked) -- is that to deny God the power to require faith. In other words, if God simply has access to a supercomputer that can accurately predict our personalities/tendencies (and thus our choices), then why should we have faith in him? There are counter-arguments to this objection, of course.
------ Tatiana writes:
"We have free will inside our timeline. He can, from his perspective outside our timeline, see what we chose to do."
I can understand this pov.
Perhaps he is outside our timeline, but not outside of time? This gets us into an area of physics that I a) don't understand really and b) is pretty much speculation at this point.
But still.
I just don't see how God could be outside of time (all time) because Mormons believe that he has corporeal form. Can you occupy space, but not time?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Zal -
I guess I'm unsure how denying God knowledge of the future is tatamount to rejecting the necessity of faith. It is still possible to hold confidence in his abilities and intentions, no?
quote:Perhaps he is outside our timeline, but not outside of time?
Isn't this similar to the argument Eugene England synthesized - that God has attained absolute perfection in all spheres pertaining to us, but is progressing in spheres unrelated?
I'm a fan of the blog, by the way.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
What about the fact that Mormons believe that God and the spirit of man are of the same species, not the "Creator/Created" distinction that classical theology makes (with the two being of completely different "essences")? MAJOR difference as I see it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:But LDS people have suggested there's a basic philosophical difference.
This has been a hard thread to answer. Too many of us are talking about theological differences. No one yet, although I have tried to explain it from my point of view, has actually answered the question. Although philosophy can lead to theology and thoughts on theology can bring philosophical discussions, they are not the same thing. Despite what Dagonee and dkw have said, I think there are some *major* philosophical differences, but they aren't easy to explain. Perhaps they are too subtle to put into words.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Thanks MattB. You make some very good points. We Mormons do indeed have a lot of traditions. We also have a lot of folk lore, unique cultural quirks, personal opinions, and our share of whackos (the scriptures about wheat and tares growing together and wolves not sparing the flock come to mind). And thrown into the mix is some flat-out false doctrine.
To elaborate a little on my statement about some things being set in stone: Our church leaders have always taught us that it is vital for each member to learn and understand true doctrine so that we are able to tell when something is just tradition and when it is set in stone - or in other words, revealed scripture.
Your mention of the eligible ages for priesthood ordinations is a good example. Normally (i.e. traditionally) a man must be a member of the church for one year before he is ordained an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Then sometime later he might be ordained a High Priest if he is called to one of various leadership positions. But I know of a case where a man wasn’t even a member of the church when he woke up one Saturday. He was baptized, ordained a High Priest, and then ordained as a counselor in the Bishopric all on the same weekend.
Normally we follow the traditional guidelines on stuff like this. We don’t capriciously go and do it differently. But under certain circumstances and with the proper authorization from the proper church leader, tradition can be circumvented.
There are examples such as various traditional dress codes, and the use of bread for the Sacrament. There are established traditions for such things. But we could, for example, use Moon Pies for the Sacrament if that is all we had and it would be ok. Unfortunately we occasionally find someone who gets their knickers in a knot when they see something happen that they think has violated doctrine, not understanding that it was just a tradition that was circumvented because of circumstances . Reminds me of Paul’s statement, “However we have no such doctrine.”
On the other hand, the Sacrament prayers absolutely have to be given exactly as written. That IS set in stone.
Another category is the cultural quirks that can masquerade as doctrine if we aren‘t careful. It is fine and dandy to have your house decorated in Contemporary Mormon, complete with busts of Joseph and Emma on the mantle, EFY music playing softly in the background, and resin grapes on the coffee table (oops, make that “the postum table), just as long as you don’t expect me to buy in to all the trappings. I can be member in good standing without adopting all the cultural fads.
Sometimes the speculations and educated opinions of church scholars end up getting preached across local pulpits and in Sunday School class rooms as revealed doctrine. I do not blame Skousen, Covey, Widsoe, etc. for this because a close reading usually makes it clear that they are just stating carefully considered opinions. I blame assigned speakers and Sunday School teachers and such who are just trying to make their talks or lessons a little more exiting. They must think the scriptures aren’t sensational enough, I guess.
My same indictment, only double, goes for fictional miracle stories that get preached as faith promoting experiences. Folk lore and urban legends are not doctrine. These can be insidious because they are a little hard to refute using the scriptures. They often sound plausible, and wishful thinking sometimes makes us hope they are true - the old “Hey, if it isn’t true, it ought to be!” sort of thinking.
But the counterfeit doctrine that disturbs me the most is from the whacko types that claim to have had a revelation of some kind but really haven‘t. If we are not careful, we Mormons run the risk of being vulnerable to this sort of thing. That’s because we believe so strongly in modern on-going revelation from God. So when some seemingly pious person among us comes along and says something like, “It has been made know to me . . .[blah blah].” We tend to go, “Oooo Ahhhh Gaa Gaa!”
In a way I kind of envy my friend who is a Protestant and believes in the Sola Scriptura. He would pretty much automatically be skeptical and quickly point to what Paul said.
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6 - 8)
I guess folks everywhere are faced with the ongoing battle to sort out the truth from the crud. We all have that in common. I’ve just tried to point out some of the Mormon outlook on the subject. At least this Mormon’s outlook.
Sam
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: (I tried to read the book How Greek Philosophy Corrupted Christianity (title may be wrong), but it wasn't exactly clear.)
The books title suggest that a set of philosophies which form the foundations of the christian tradition have somehow corrupted it? Which came first, the chicken or the henhouse?
I think the English language is ruining American culture, clearly we're getting dumber if we'll buy books like that.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I have to agree with Sam on the issue of people believing so much in modern-day revelation that they're willing to simply believe whatever some "seemingly pious" person says. I would take it a step further and say that this is one particular philosophical difference. In the LDS society, (and understand I am speaking specifically about my old ward and my own experience, not of Mormons as a whole) there seems to me to be a reluctance to question. It's in my nature to question things, to find out for myself. But, the attitude I generally encountered in my ward and in college, was one of never questioning authority and believing whatever you're told.
This to me contradicted one of the basic concepts of Mormonism: that bit at the end of the B.O.M. were the reader is encouraged to not take the authors' word for it, but to ask God if it were true. I extend this into never allowing myself being content in my current position, but always re-evaluate my beliefs to make them, and myself better.
BTW, I currently do not call myself a Mormon for reasons I don't want to derail the thread to talk about, but I never did "cancel my membership" so to speak, nor do I believe in Buddhism unquestionably. I am still seeking my path. Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
For what it is worth, here is another Mormon perspective that may be apropos to this thread.
It is a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” sort of thing. I’ve heard it said, from an agnostic perspective, that man invented religions. Therefore Christianity was invented by freely borrowing ideas from ancient philosophers all over the place plus maybe adding a few original ideas for good measure.
We Mormons look at it the other way around. We believe that the first man, Adam, understood and taught the same things we teach about the nature of God, the universe, mankind’s purpose for being here, that there would be a Messiah to atone for mankind, etc. Adam, Noah, and all the other prophets taught these things. But because of apostasy, these teaching have been gradually changed into forms we see today as some of the various world philosophies.
So we look at, for instance, the philosophy of reincarnation and see how it might be an altered version of what we teach about the law of eternal progression. The idea of an anthropomorphic god didn’t come from the Greeks. They got the idea (indirectly perhaps) from Noah.
That’s what we are talking about when we say that the gospel was RESTORED through Joseph Smith. It’s the same gospel Adam and Noah taught.
Mind you now, I’ve never taken any philosophy classes nor comparative world religion classes. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, so I know what I’m talking about. Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Orincoro, I posted that last before I read your last post.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Despite what Dagonee and dkw have said, I think there are some *major* philosophical differences, but they aren't easy to explain.
I think there are huge philosophical differences. But I still feel the need to correct misstatements/misunderstandings about non-LDS churches if they pop up in the attempt to elucidate the differences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ditto what dkw said.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Then I would like to know what you think those philosophical differences are. Perhaps I can correct some misstatements/misunderstandings I have a feeling both of you have.
quote:The books title suggest that a set of philosophies which form the foundations of the christian tradition have somehow corrupted it? Which came first, the chicken or the henhouse?
I think the English language is ruining American culture, clearly we're getting dumber if we'll buy books like that.
I take it you don't know much about Mormonism. It explicitly rejects Christian Tradition as corrupted from original theology.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Philosophical differences:
Christianity: "GOOD is God."
Mormonism: "God is GOOD."
??
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm also going to have to agree with what you said earlier about the philosophical differences being difficult to explain. Theological differences are easier, although I think that the philosophical differences grow out of the theological differences (or maybe the other way around) so it's not entirely a wasted exercise.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Good point, dkw.
And, of course, there are those who argue that you can't really 'do' Mormon theology or philosophy because it's more about praxis (although perhaps by 'do'ing it, a theology and philsophy develops).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Scott, I'm Christian and not Mormon, but I agree with the *Mormon* statement. I think most Christians would. I've heard more than once something similar (from non-LDS sources): God is love, but it doesn't say love is God.
Anyway. I have this other question, inspired by the Integrity thread. I'm Catholic. If I found out that the pope was a bad man prostituting the church for personal ambition -- or swindled widows out of their socks and underwear, well . . . some popes did! (The prostituting and ambition part -- we can't verify the socks and underwear rumor .) If the pope announced to us that he was going to give us a corrected version of the Bible because all our modern translations were off, well, we certainly wouldn't listen to him. We seem to have *way* less faith in our leaders than LDS do in Smith (and others? not sure).
I know LDS supports a *questioning* faith, because I've heard it discussed here. How far should you question your founders? I wouldn't question Christ, but I don't think LDS affords its more immediate founders that much faith (or am I wrong?).
Or is it just that if you don't believe the Book of Mormon, or the Documents, you shouldn't call yourself LDS -- sort of like I'd say if you don't believe the Nicene Creed, why call yourself Catholic?
I appreciate the great (and civil) discussion that we've had so far.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: If the pope announced to us that he was going to give us a corrected version of the Bible because all our modern translations were off, well, we certainly wouldn't listen to him.
You mean like this? (Just kidding, obviously. kind of.)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, you *must* be kidding. The AMS is another translation of the Bible, not a rewrite, and of course the Pope didn't translate it. Also, it's not noticeably different from other versions (except that its language is more modern than KJV, RSV, etc.) Scholarship is not the same as prophecy! Although both can be a great idea.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Will B, that is a hard question that LDS have been grappling with since Joseph Smith himself. Some have decided that since he did (a) it must mean he wasn't a prophet - more often than not they leave the church or at least go inactive. Others have said since he did (a) that means he is not perfect, but he is still the instrument for revealing God's message. Finally, there are those who say he didn't do (a) and those who say such are twisting the truth or have a wrong interpretation.
Depending on what (a) is talking about, I personally go back and forth between the second and third reaction. I have yet to encounter anything that makes me consider the first option. It would have to be something really awful and convincing.
Joseph Smith himself many times said he wasn't perfect, and his own revelations tell him to repent at times. As for other LDS prophets, I think only Brigham Young comes close to his audacity and free spirit. The rest have been mostly tame and "poster boys" for the religion. Lets just say that for me the person's spiritual and theological accomplishments better be equal or greater to any indescretions. Then again, even the Biblical prophets did things that make us uneasy.
I think its not so much questioning your founders as much as what you decide from your questioning. If you question your religious leader's role as a representative and spokesperson of God, then you have serious faith issues. If, on the other hand, you wish to understand the human behind the prophet I think that is a noble goal.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Good point, Will. A Mormon’s testimony, or conviction, has to be based on the following elements. And if he has a problem with any of these elements he is not really converted. Even with a strong testimony of these things, it is hard enough to have the faith to do what you’re supposed to. Without that conviction, it is way hard. (I won’t try here to explain how one goes about getting that strong conviction nor what it feels like.)
Here are those above mentioned elements: 1. God lives and is our Father 2 Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is the Savior of the world. He is also the head of his church. 3. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and through him Christ restored his church and gospel. 4. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearle of Great Price are true books of scripture. 5. Christ’s church has continued to this day and will continue clear though the second coming of Christ. 6. All of Joseph Smith’s successors have been prophets, seers, and revelators - including President Gordon B. Hinckley today. And God will never allow the president of the church to lead his people astray.
I no longer question these things. I can understand why that might seem like blind faith to some people. But I figure there is no point in continually relearning the basics - reinventing the wheel, as it were. Sometimes when we are having a gospel argument, my wife half jokingly says, “Whoever can quote Joseph Smith wins.”
However, there is still a bunch of stuff I can question. For one thing, when someone puts forth with some new thing that Joseph Smith supposedly said or did, I certainly have the right, indeed the obligation, to question whether or not he actually did say or do it. There are a lot of liars and sensation mongers out there. But even if I decide that JS did say it I still have to decided if he was speaking in prophet mode or if it was just his speculation. Yes, prophets are allowed to have their own opinions.
The same goes for supposed statements by other leaders and scholars.
Another sort of thing I have questioned many times in the past and will continue to question are certain local traditions and practices that tend to get added by well-meaning local leaders. Most of these things are not intrinsically bad, it’s just that I don’t see why I should be obligated to buy into them. (The current thing I’m having a problem with is the “hand cart quest” fad.)
Then there are the speculations that get batted around. There have been no clear revelations answering certain subjects so I’m entitled to have my own ideas about them. It is also ok for me to disagree with other folks’ ideas. Obviously the Lord does not consider some subjects important enough give a definitive revelation. That does not stop inquiring minds from wondering. Or wandering, for that matter.
Will, your mention of the Pope reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. There was a popular General Authority who got the boot because of some serious moral transgressions. There were a lot of Mormon folks around my area of the country who were devastated about this. Actually, I’m not sure “devastated” is the right word. But they were certainly way disappointed. But we just had to get over it and understand that, sure he was a man and made some mistakes but the gospel is still true. The church is still true.
In your case that you mention, if you can come to grips with it in a similar way, great. If not, you are always welcome to come to our church.
Sam
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I agree with all the good things Sam and Dave and others have said here.
In addition, I want to say just a little bit about "gaining a testimony", the phrase we LDS use for "obtaining a personal conviction that any given doctrine is true, or that the church as a whole is true". It's mostly a mystery, I think, how you gain and lose your testimonies of things. So I know I don't have the whole answer to that. I think a lot of it is God's doing and not just ours. That is, we're in a partnership with him, and part of the part that's mysterious to us is just his part of the partnership.
But I know something that's really important at an early stage. You have to be willing to believe in something good. You have to (I think) make some conscious choice that you know it's possible to be cynical and jaded and refuse to notice the good in things, and that it's possible to be starry eyed and pollyannaish and refuse to see any evil. But at some point you have to decide to put your money on the horse of goodness, even provisionally. You have to choose that you will not refuse to see the things that are joyous and hopeful, the fact that there is a lot of goodness that exists, and we can make it more if we believe in it and "back" it.
I think that's one of the early stages of gaining a testimony. I'll post more later about what I think about later stages.
[ April 07, 2006, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
"Putting your money on the horse of goodness." Sounds like a conversation I was having with my (atheist) best friend.
What is "gaining a testimony"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You have to choose that you will not refuse to see the things that are joyous and hopeful...
I'm still wary of the line between that and "seeing things which are joyous and hopeful but which do not actually exist."
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Will B, "gaining a testimony" is finding a personal conviction that some particular doctrine is true, or that the church as a whole is true. For instance, I gained a testimony of tithing, after tithing faithfully for a while, neglecting my tithing for a while, then again tithing faithfully. I felt tangibly how it blessed my life, during this process, so I came to believe in a visceral way, not just an intellectual way, that I definitely want to pay tithing always. It's a joy and a blessing to me. That's called gaining a testimony.
"Your testimony" can also mean a statement of your belief in the church, in Joseph Smith as a true prophet, etc. Does that clear up what I mean by testimony?
About putting your money on the horse of goodness, I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate. I'll use my favorite historical episode that I have researched really well, the civil rights movement. The activists back then, Martin Luther King and SCLC, the SNCC students, the NAACP, and others, looking at the situation pre-civil-rights movement had basically two ways they could interpret the facts. They could say that the idea of freedom and justice and equality that America was based on was just a pipe dream. That it had always meant only freedom for white landowning men. That no advanced society in history had ever actually extended equal rights and opportunities to its citizens and residents. Always there had been some underclass who served the over-class (if that's a word) and that society was dependent on there being plenty of cheap labor by some segment of the population who would have to be kept down and exploited by another segment in order for things to work out.
Had they thought that way, they might have fought to help their own group be the winners, and let others take a turn at being the oppressed ones for a change, they could have said turnabout is fair play and now we're the masters and you are the servants. They could have worked and fought for a vision of that future, knowing (as hard nosed realists) that true freedom and equality, respect for all individuals, etc. is just pie in the sky optimism. That was one choice.
There was another choice or view or understanding of things that they chose instead. They chose to believe in the ideal of America, (and their faith and Christianity had a huge part of this), that all humans as children of God have intrinsic worth, and it is possible and even imperative that there come to be a society which had equal justice, equal laws, equal opportunity for all. They made this their vision, and largely brought it about. Obviously we have a long way to go, in completely solving the problems that plague our society including racism, poverty, ignorance, and remaining injustices of all sorts. But we have come a very very long way, since my childhood, in this regard. Far more than anyone at the time could have hoped in their wildest pipe-dreams.
Had they backed the first (hard nosed realism) horse, our society now would be like the middle east, with murders, bombs, terror, bloodbaths, and no end in sight as the decades go by. Certainly one side of the civil rights struggle took that path. They decided to fight their battle with bombs, assassinations, and terror. There were many deaths and injuries that occurred.
Instead, though, the activists mostly took the almost insanely optimistic view. I grew up in the South as the civil rights movement was just getting cranked up and I remember how it was, (not just in the south but all over the country.) We have come a very long way since then toward our ideals. And not only did it free blacks but it freed everyone. The country is aeons ahead of the bulk of the world when it comes to equal opportunity and lack of racial tensions. They gave us all a huge gift by believing in America and largely making it come true. They gave us America.
That's what I mean by putting your money on the horse of goodness. The best quote that describes it to me is the thing Vaclav Havel wrote about hope. I'm going to quote it again here, and I apologize to anyone who has seen me post it before. It's one of my favorite quotes of all time.
quote: Hope is a state of mind, not of the world . . . Either we have hope or we don't; it is a dimension of the soul, and it's not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation.
Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, and orientation of the heart; it transcends the world that is immediately experienced, and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons . . .
Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed. The more unpropitious the situation in which we demonstrate hope, the deeper the hope is.
Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.
Vaclav Havel
I would venture to say that, in order to gain a testimony of the truth of the restored gospel, it is first very helpful to reach for, or choose to hold, Martin Luther King's and Vaclav Havel's sort of hope.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I suppose another good example might be the seemingly insane optimism of Vaclav Havel and the other Czech dissidents in working toward freedom from Soviet totalitarianism. Surely after the Prague Spring of 1968, things must have looked about as bleak and hopeless as they possibly could. Somehow they found within themselves that hope required to continue working toward pie-in-the-sky dreams of freedom and truth.
If you had said to most anyone during his imprisonment, that he would one day be president, they would have thought you insanely pollyanna-optimistic. And yet... Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From another thread:
quote:Although, come to think of it, if there had to be a line in the sand, it would be the day the priesthood passed from the earth for that dispensation. I'm not sure when Dante and Occasional believe that was. - Katharina
I have no idea, and I don't think any Latter-day Saints do; even if they think they did. I will expand on what I said at the start of this thread to explain what I think happened.
Jesus gave the Priesthood to the Apostles and they to other Church members. Over the years many converts from all over the Roman Empire started to bring their own ideas into the Church. Eventually, those who brought both evil behavior and false teachings into the Church became more numerous than those who followed the true Gospel. The death of the Apostles also caused the loss of the higher authority.
All that was left was the lesser priesthood authority. However, the death of the Apostles left a wide open gap that allowed the false teachers to become the orthodox members. At this point, to paraphrase Hugh Nibley, the lights went out. A struggle of ideas and philosophies raged along with the Roman sacking of Jerusalem. When the lights came back on (meaning an historical trail could be followed) probably by the end of the first Century, the true Gospel message was replaced by a patchwork of outside influences and the Priesthood authority had been taken off the Earth.
The view I hold is that as soon as Constantine said "now that Christianity is a state religion, we have to know what is "officially" Christian," original Christianity no longer existed. It had become a mere shadow of itself in Catholicism. True, I believe the Gospel and Priesthood was long gone by his time. Yet, I also believe that Constantine and his councils had sealed the fate of Christianity for more than a thousand years.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Do LDS recognize the New Testament of both Protestants and Catholics as scripture or not? If so, on what authority?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do LDS recognize the New Testament of both Protestants and Catholics as scripture or not? If so, on what authority?
From the Articles of Faith:
quote: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Do LDS recognize the New Testament of both Protestants and Catholics as scripture or not?
Well, yes and no. We officially recognize the Protestant Bible books as authoritative. That would include the Four Gospels, the letters of Paul, Peter, James, and John. We don't recognize all of the Catholic Bible books as Scripture that are known as the Apocrypha; although a revelation to Joseph Smith had this to say:
quote:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
If so, on what authority?
By the authority of Revelation declairing the Truth of the Bible. Also, how the Bible is used in the Revelations and by Priesthood Authorities as an official teaching tool acceptable by God.
That is only part of the story. In practice the Bible is used by Latter-day Saints in much the same way as other Christians. It tends to be seen in literalist ways similiar to evangilicals. In theory Mormons don't hold as high value of the TEXT as other Christians. In other words, there is no such idea of the innerancy and single sufficiantcy of the Bible. It was written, produced, and copied down by mortals - inspired as they might be. For Mormons, all Scripture is fluid and transformable through revelation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay...while I don't agree with it I can understand your argument. You do undertand, though, that "Constantine founding the Catholic Church" is not an historical statement, but a theological one. And not one that is widely held.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I understand that is what people say. Although it might be considered a theological statement, I also believe it is an historical fact. I don't compartmentalize theology and history.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, it might be a good idea. It makes a difference. To say that, because you have theological differences with the Catholic Church, thus you consider that it was founded by Constantine, disregards the historical fact that people considered themselves to be part of the church prior to Constantine's intervention.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't disregard. It is something I have considered. I simply don't believe, and I hold my beliefs as historical realities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So how do you explain the historical fact that people called their church "Catholic" 200 years before Constantine?
And earlier you mentioned scholars?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Because Catholic merely means "Universal"
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I'm LDS, and I reject the idea that Constantine founded the Catholic church for any number of historical reasons, not least: 1) many of the primary features of Catholicism date to before his reign, and 2) he did not, as is sometimes asserted, make Christianity/Catholicism the state religion.
Was there a notable Constantinian shift? Sure. He had a huge impact on the history of Christianity. But I can't see any way in which he "founded" Catholicism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because Catholic merely means "Universal"
Still does - what is your point?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The Catholic "Apocrypha" are all in the Old Testament... so, as I understand, the New Testament Canon is agreed upon by Catholics, Protestants, and LDS (seperating those last two for convenience here).
Since that Canon was agreed upon in the councils you are deriding here, Occasional, I'm not sure why they should be right about that and wrong about everything else, though it's certainly possible.
But thank you all for clarifying. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its extremely likely that there were many early churches that used the word "catholic" within their name but ultimately disappeared or were inducted into the truely Catholic church that eventually formed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp, both at the end of the first century and the beginning og the second, referred to the "Catholic Church" in their writings. They are certainly foundational to the "truly" Catholic Church rather than being inducted or disappeared into it.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
In Spanish you have La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana (Catholic) and La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Reformada (Lutheren), La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Anglicana (Church of England), etc.
Many churches still use Catholic in their name.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As I cannot read their actual references that you say they make, I will pass on judging their actual implications. But I agree with Artemisia Tridentata that many churches could easily use the word "Catholic" in their names while holding many beliefs that are vastly different then the Catholic church that formed or exists today.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The Apostle's Creed is from around 250. Monasticism is from around 270. The first Roman pope was in 189. Excommunication (which implies authority) dates back at least to that pope, but possibly to Christ's words to the apostles. Constantine's vision came later, in 312.
To deny Catholicism before Constantine is simply to redefine "Catholicism" to mean "not before Constantine." We can expect Catholics to react to this much as American Indians might react if you tell them their ancestors weren't really Americans.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I would guess that most churches nowadays that have the word Catholic in them probably had roots in Catholicism at some point. Like the Lutheran and Anglican examples. I'm not sure why those examples mean anything to this conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: As I cannot read their actual references that you say they make, I will pass on judging their actual implications.
Some examples:
St. Ignatius: "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
St. Polycarp: "The Church of God that sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God that sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place" (Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, preface).
And a description of his words at his martydom (written fairly contemporaneously)
"Polycarp had finished his prayer, in which he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted . . . and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
And:
"Now with the apostles and all the just, [Polycarp] is glorifying God and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
One thing I should clarify is that I do believe the original church as created by Christ and lead by his apostles could be called "A Catholic Church" whether it continued intact into the present Catholic church is what I dispute.
It is generally accepted that after the Apostle Peter (The recognized leader of Christ's Church) died that Linus who was the bishop of the church in Rome became the next leader of the entire church, who maintene its uniformity in belief, and practice.
But where is the precident for this? Jesus ordaines 12 apostles to run the church, and when Judas fell away the apostles met together and ordained a new apostle (this is all in The Acts). Even the Catholic church holds that Peter was not the last apostle to die, John is generally held to have outlasted him. So why then was Linus a mere bishop of the church in Rome given "allegedly" the reigns of the entire church over some of the other apostles?
I am not trying to be offensive, but it seems to me that the central authority of the apostles was destroyed even before 200AD and by the time Constantine called the 1st Council of Nicea a central leader for the whole church had long since gone missing. There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
The Writings of the Apostles are littered with warnings about false teachings and to be wary of the teachers who spread them.
We also know there were strong disagreements even amongst the apostles as to certain docterinal teachings.
These points and some others I have not had time to write or flesh out cause me to believe that a complete organized church that everybody belonged to surviving from the time of Jesus's ressurection to the present day seems extremely unlikely.
Indeed the fact Constantine had to call a conference of Nicea to decide whether Jesus was one in purpose or in substance with the father shows that heresy and false teachings had already crept into the church. With the basic idea of the nature of the relationship between Jesus and his Father being in question, how can we believe there was uniformity amongst the leadership, with 1 man or even a group universally recognized?
There may have been a bishop of the church of Rome all the way from St Peter, but I have already questioned the legitimacy of the idea that the bishop of Rome automatically rises and grasps the reigns of the whole church questionable, and lacking in precident. There are no scriptures that suggest that this is the correct process. But there are scriptures that mention the precidence of maintaning a full quorum of 12 apostles that govern the church.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Jesus ordaines 12 apostles to run the church
Where did he do this? It's obviously not in Acts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:It is generally accepted that after the Apostle Peter (The recognized leader of Christ's Church) died that Linus who was the bishop of the church in Rome became the next leader of the entire church, who maintene its uniformity in belief, and practice.
"Generally accepted" by who?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Luke 6:
quote:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I wasn't so much asking where Jesus ordained twelve apostles, as where he ordained them "to run the church".
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Generally accepted" by who?
Catholics, I imagine...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade,
I think the problem here is that it hasn't made clear that the integrity of the Catholic Church is not dependent on a central authority, being completely organized, or even (on many issues) "uniformity of belief and practice". This is a common misconception.
We were the Catholic Church before "the Pope" was "the Pope".
And our understanding does grow and change. I would hope so. As I've said, God is not something we can ever completely understand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Generally accepted" by who?
Catholics, I imagine...
Actually, early on, all the apostolic churches were considered more or less equal. Rome did not necessarily have more authority than the others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squicky--
Hmm. I think it's implied if not strictly laid out.
:shrug:
For Mormons, the name we've given to the leading council of our Church is the 12 Apostles. There are actually 15 apostles, including the First Presidency. Historically, an apostle was anyone who was "sent forth" to be a special witness of Christ's resurrection (see Acts 1). I don't think that leadership roles were exactly necessary to the calling, but it may have developed that way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but you're a Mormon. The whole quorom thing is important to you. I (and just about every Christian in the history of Christianity) don't really see this. BlackBlade's arguing that if you accept this LDS principle that isn't actually in the Bible, then the other forms of Christianity got it wrong. Which is fine, but he's trying to pass it off as a non-LDS centric argument, which it most definitely is not.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kate, I was referring to the idea that Linus was successor to Peter rather than his having any particular authority. The primacy of Rome definitely developed later, as you say, so well...
So, the idea is not that Peter handed the reins off to Linus, but that Linus was a part of Peter's "lineage" so to speak.
The authority vested in the Bishop of Rome is as Kate points out, considerably less than most people seem to think it is.
Is this the wrong thread for this?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I (and just about every Christian in the history of Christianity) don't really see this.
That's interesting. What do other religions think the 12 were for?
Any leadership capacity tied to them?
quote:Yes, but you're a Mormon.
You know, Squicky, I'm a bit insulted. I consider myself to have deeply held and CONSIDERED beliefs. Implying that BECAUSE I'm X, therefore I must perforce BELIEVE in X precludes my capacity to think and evaluate things independently and without bias.
It's a difficult task, to think that someone with whom you disagree may have come to their opinions on basis of logic and reason, rather than misguided cultural inheritance-- but do try.
I hold myself to be a convert to Mormonism, even though I was born to the faith.
[ April 27, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Is this the wrong thread for this?
Probably, but Occasional moved us back here, so...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, it is generally accepted that they had a leadership role, but this role is not assumed to be completely exclusive nor central to the foundation of the the Church. St. Paul, for example, though not an ordained Apostle, is still an authority bearing leader of the early Church.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Paul specifically claims to be an apostle in his writing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Paul says he was (EDIT) called to be an apostle-- Romans 1:1.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, and he is, but not one of the twevle ordained by Jesus.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Can you tell me why you make the distinction? I don't see how your objection has any bearing on this discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Jesus ordaines 12 apostles to run the church, and when Judas fell away the apostles met together and ordained a new apostle (this is all in The Acts). Even the Catholic church holds that Peter was not the last apostle to die, John is generally held to have outlasted him. So why then was Linus a mere bishop of the church in Rome given "allegedly" the reigns of the entire church over some of the other apostles?
I am not trying to be offensive, but it seems to me that the central authority of the apostles was destroyed even before 200AD and by the time Constantine called the 1st Council of Nicea a central leader for the whole church had long since gone missing. There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where does it say in that passage that apostolic authority is only possible with those apostles who Jesus himself ordained?
Are you claiming that's what the quoted bit is saying?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
An argument could be made that Jesus "ordained" Paul on the road to Damascus.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
I'm trying to point out that this sentence doesn't matter in terms of the Church being correct or not unless you accept specific ideas about the role and trasmission of apostolic authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I think that there may be some confusion about what is meant by apostolic. I am not aware of any Catholic doctrine that indicates that we need to have any sort of a quorum. There were (I should look this up, but I think) six apostolic communities that made up the Church.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You know, Squicky, I'm a bit insulted. I consider myself to have deeply held and CONSIDERED beliefs. Implying that BECAUSE I'm X, therefore I must perforce BELIEVE in X precludes my capacity to think and evaluate things independently and without bias.
It's a difficult task, to think that someone with whom you disagree may have come to their opinions on basis of logic and reason, rather than misguided cultural inheritance-- but do try.
I hold myself to be a convert to Mormonism, even though I was born to the faith.
I said nothing about this. You accept the Mormon teaching on the Apostles and such. It's normal for you to parse the Bible in such a way that it implies that these beliefs are correct. Which, again, is fine, but you should realize that the implication that is so clear to you is not clear to most people who don't hold the same beliefs as you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The Apostles thought that the post of apostle was important enough to replace Judas, and to keep ordaining apostles-- Barnabas anb Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, for example.
I KNOW that the word quorum isn't used in the Bible-- I understand that that may be a Mormon-centric term.
What do other religions think that an apostle is?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Early followers of Jesus who spread the word of Christianity and started and led various communities of followers - all of which made up the Catholic Church. Those who were ssent out. Theologians. Writers.
Regarding "twelve". I'm not necessarily saying it is the case here, but the writers of scripture often used numbers for their symbolic rather than their historic value.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Early disciple." In the strict sense, it's used as a historical term only, with no modern equivilent. In a looser sense, it is sometimes used for an early advocate of any new way of thinking, or the first person to carry a particular message to a particular place. (In that sense, calling Quim the "apostle to the piggies" in Speaker would fit.)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I know Catholics and their nearer offshoots are very big on "apostolic succession" involving direct passing on of the apostolic mantle as with Matthias, except it isn't a one to one replacement...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In the Catholic and Anglican Church, the authority of the Church flows from the Apostles, in, as Jim said, apostolic succession. The various ordained participate in the apostolic succession and thus in apostolic powers and authority. There is no indication in either the Bible or early writings that there was any concern about a council of 12, outside of the original, or in direct, one to one sucession.
I don't know so much about the Protestant sects. They've got a lot of different ideas about a lot of things. The view that I've come across most often is that the personal relationship that each man or woman has with God is what confers "authority" and that the Apostles were specially selected teachers and spreaders of Jesus' message whose were necessary at one point, but no longer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"Early disciple." In the strict sense, it's used as a historical term only, with no modern equivilent.
DKW-- Hmm. Why does Jesus seperate out the apostles from the disciples (Luke 6, I believe)? From my reading, the mantle of apostleship seems to hold a greater burden of responsability than that of discipleship.
Also, can you explain what you mean that "it's used as a historical term only?"
quote:There is no indication in either the Bible or early writings that there was any concern about a council of 12, outside of the original, or in direct, one to one sucession.
I'm interested in your take on the end of Acts 1, where Peter and the other eleven apostles replace Judas. There is concern shown that there be at least twelve apostles.
Additionally, we know from other writings that three more were called (though I can't find the circumstances under which each were called): Paul, Baranabas, and James.
Further, Paul writes to the Ephesians and calls the apostles part of the foundation of the church; he implies in Ephesians 4 that apostles are given for the perfection of the church.
quote:You accept the Mormon teaching on the Apostles and such. It's normal for you to parse the Bible in such a way that it implies that these beliefs are correct.
What I dislike about this is the word "accept." Perhaps it's unintended-- but to me, it implies a caricature of blind faith. I don't "accept" the Mormon teachings on this-- the teachings are MINE through reason, study and prayer.
It's like saying, "Well OF COURSE you believe in medicating for ADHD-- you're a psychiatrist!"
Does that make sense?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm interested in your take on the end of Acts 1, where Peter and the other eleven apostles replace Judas. There is concern shown that there be at least twelve apostles.
Yes, that would be why I referenced the original council of 12, which would include Matthias. The Apostles pre-resurrection were followers, not leaders. (Also, I think you meant Peter and the other ten apostles.)
For the rest, yes, the Apostles, regardless of tradition were considered important. See for example my post about apostolic sucession. No one is disputing that they are important. Other than that, I don't see what point you're trying to make.
See, here's the thing. It's not in the Bible or history of the early Church that there's this obvious established thing that you need twelve direct successors to the Apostles that everyone but the LDS just ignored. It's fine to believe this, but recognize that it's an LDS concept and that other traditions have other ways of dealing with apostolic authority, such that they're not obviously all apostates.
---
As for your odd defintion of accept, I can't stop you from bending over backwards to take offense when none is meant. So go nuts. I never expected the apology you owe me anyway.
Posted by Son Of Kerensky (Member # 9233) on :
Well this debate started as a calm rational event and has followed down the slippery slope. I would for the sake of maintaining peace in your hearts taking what has become an arguement no further. Both of you in your fervent writtings have as much implied losing the spirit of understanding that you were initially attempting to propigate. This certainly doesn't help you maintain your hearts inline with Christ's desire for peace for all his followers. Though any other questions that persue truth and understanding would be excellent=)
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
For the longest time, because of LDS teachings, I assumed at the death of the 12 apostles that the early church quit being true. After some casual studies (book on tape) I later decided that the truth just slowly went away as the church leaders and members quit getting personal revelation. In fact, leaders in 200/300 (I can't remember dates--I think it was Origen) wrote that they knew they didn't have revelation anymore and that they knew it was the only thing that mattered, yet they couldn't get it back. And by Nicea, it was pretty much all gone.
However, I love the statement by Hugh Nibley. He said something like the Catholic church kept the memory of the early church alive, and we all owe them that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The Apostles pre-resurrection were followers, not leaders.
I disagree. When Jesus couldn't be found, people went to the Apostles for help.
quote:It's not in the Bible or history of the early Church that there's this obvious established thing that you need twelve direct successors to the Apostles that everyone but the LDS just ignored. It's fine to believe this, but recognize that it's an LDS concept and that other traditions have other ways of dealing with apostolic authority, such that they're not obviously all apostates.
"such that they're not obviously all apostates."
Why do you use this particular phrase? Do you believe that I'm arguing that other churches are apostate?
quote:As for your odd defintion of accept, I can't stop you from bending over backwards to take offense when none is meant. So go nuts. I never expected the apology you owe me anyway.
That's an interesting reaction, Squicky.
How have I offended you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you believe that I'm arguing that other churches are apostate?
Isn't it official Mormon doctrine that other Christian churches are apostate?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do YOU want to play at questions, Tom?
It depends on what is meant by 'apostate.' As Jim-me pointed out in the Catholic thread, it's a very loaded word. To me, 'apostate' implies a willful turning away from God.
By that estimation, I don't think many churches currently running are apostate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My understanding is that the Apostles were those disciples of Jesus that were sent out to spread the gospel. That is what the word means - to send forth. Some disciples stayed; 12 were sent forth. Once sent they established "outposts" - other Christian communities.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Isn't it official Mormon doctrine that other Christian churches are apostate?
Yes it is. You can look at the official Mormon site for people interested in learning about the Church.
quote: After Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, His Apostles continued to receive revelation from Him on how to direct the work of His Church. However, after they were killed, members changed the teachings of the Church that He had established. While many good people and some truth remained, this Apostasy, or general falling away from the truth, brought about the withdrawal of the Church from the earth.
Being apostate doesn't mean you are a bad person, just that the peopel turned away from all the "true" teachings--which encompass the saving ordinances.
quote: "Saving ordinances" are the ordinances required for salvation; they include baptism, confirmation, endowment, and sealing. Sealings are the LDS version of marriage - instead of the more common "till death do you part," a couple is "sealed" for time and all eternity to each other and to any children they might have under such a union. Endowments have no equivalent that I am aware of. While regular baptisms and confirmations are held in chapels, where anyone may attend and observe, endowments and sealings are performed only inside temples of the Church.
Saving ordinances require the priesthood in order to be legitimate. Losing the priesthood is the operative definition of apostasy.
quote: Throughout time, God has given His servants, the prophets, the authority to act in His name. This authority is called the priesthood. Jesus Christ gave the priesthood to His original Twelve Apostles, and they directed the work of His Church after Jesus ascended to heaven. But after the Apostles were killed, the priesthood gradually disappeared from the earth. In 1829 Joseph Smith received the priesthood authority to organize Christ’s Church. In 1830 the same Church of Jesus Christ that existed centuries ago was organized and restored to the earth.
EDIT: To change "loosing" to "losing." Thanks!
[ April 28, 2006, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Losing, dear. Loosing is something else entirely.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Losing, dear. Loosing is something else entirely.
That is the problem of relying on a spellchecker--to many wrong words are spelled correctly. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And this is why I stepped out. I said that I believe theology IS history. If I didn't think it was history than I wouldn't believe it was theology; or more directly truth.
On the other hand, I am not going to get into a debate about it either because those who don't have my faith will not agree with me and I will not agree with them. It isn't worth discussing either, because there are beliefs and assumptions each hold that can never be crossed no matter what evidence exists. The reason for this is the evidence is imprecise and wide open to interpretation. Add assumptions of stronly held faith and you might as well be blowing people up to win the argument.
At any rate - a few things that were directed to me. The reason the debate moved over here is because it started to become more LDS centric (as at least one person mentioned in passing) than Catholic. It jumped back to a defense of the Catholic idea of authority. Once you go down the path of discussion of religious authority than you might as well pick up a sword. I have never heard of a coming to understanding with that subject, but have heard of countless splits and hard feelings - and actual wars.
The best that can happen is that I say my peace and someone else says their peace and agree to disagree. Mormons believe strongly that living Prophets and 12 Apostles are essential to the organization of the Christian Church. Almost all other Christian religions do not. End of story.
Finally there are some scholars that I have had in mind when mentioned and others asked about. H. A. Drake "Constantine and the Bishops," Richard E rubenstein "When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome," J. Dominic Crossan, Bart D. Ehrman, and Elaine Pagels. Some of what they say I don't agree with (especially J.D. Crossan), and some of what I conclude from their writings they wouldn't agree with. However, I don't think ideas on the history of Christianity can be considered set in stone as some seem to currently insist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional,
Nobody is picking up swords here. Or blowing people up. I believe that at least understanding the point of view of others is a very good way to avoid those things. My point is that there is a difference between disputing interpretation of historical fact for reasons of theology and disputing the historical facts themselves.
Thanks for giving me the names of those scholars. I am somewhat familiar with Crossan (and I generally do agree with him) and look forward to checking out the others. It sound like you might be interested in Paula Fredrikson as well. Her "From Jesus to Christ" has a lot of interesting information.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I've read, but was not convinced by, Pagels in college. I couldn't even tell you what her points were now.
Edit: that is not meant to imply that she didn't have one... just that I didn;t follow it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Also, can you explain what you mean that "it's used as a historical term only?"
Scott, I mean that in most Protestant churches it is a term that applies to certain people in the Bible. Not to a role that exists today.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade,
I think the problem here is that it hasn't made clear that the integrity of the Catholic Church is not dependent on a central authority, being completely organized, or even (on many issues) "uniformity of belief and practice". This is a common misconception.
We were the Catholic Church before "the Pope" was "the Pope".
And our understanding does grow and change. I would hope so. As I've said, God is not something we can ever completely understand.
I know many catholics, and I have even gone to Rome and The Vatican and I was very impressed with much of the beauty of the Christian sites there.
One of the most "KEY" things (no pun intended for the point I am making.) Is that Jesus passed his authority to lead to Peter. That is why every picture of Peter usually shows him grasping a set of keys, representing his authority to lead the church and pass those keys on. At least thats what every Catholic tour guide and church representative said when they explained the role of Peter.
The apostles are on NUMEROUS occasions refered to as "The Twelve." Why is it so important that the 12 named apostles always be grouped together if not for some special purpose?
In The Acts we see Peter taking the lead in the affairs of the church. He receives the revelation about the neccesity of accepting that the Law of Moses no longer was in effect. He presided during the councel at Jerusalem. Whether you interpret the saying of Jesus when he says "Upon this rock will I build my church" as pertaining to revelation or to Peter, the result is still the same Peter was receiving revelation for the Church.
As for Apostles that were ordained post ressurection:
Mathias was ordained an apostle by the other apostles. They were acting as a special group, not as a bunch of diciples. Paul is also eventually ordained an Apostle according to his own words. The entire book of The Acts states that it is a record of the "Acts" of the apostles not just mere deciples.
I guess my main point is that if you want to argue that the 12 Apostles were just significant men in the early christian church and not leaders groomed and prepared by Christ himself, I think there is more evidence against you then for.
The catholics I have personally talked to all declare without reservation that the pope of today can trace his authority DIRECTLY to Peter and that the church led by the apostles survived in its correct form all the way until today. They also hold to the idea that if the Catholic church were to change in any degree it would cease to be that one true church.
I won't contend so much about whether the Catholic church has EVER changed a dogma or belief, but I will contend that Jesus's original church was led by Apostles and as early as 200AD not one apostle was left, who then would regulate the church and prevent false teaching from being propagated?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The ecumenical councils.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I guess my main point is that if you want to argue that the 12 Apostles were just significant men in the early christian church and not leaders groomed and prepared by Christ himself, I think there is more evidence against you then for.
I don't think the two ideas are incompatible - although the is nothing "just" about being significant in the early church.
As for the art - well, remember who commissioned it. While apostolic succession is important, our authority is derived from God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit.
And (though some Catholics are loathe to admit it) even a cursory look at Catholic history will show that Church teaching changes and continues to change (God willing). And thank goodness! We no longer teach, for example, that Jews eat Christian babies. That doctrine changes means that we are a living, growing institution - the people of God - rather than a monument.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree that a church needs to adapt for the emerging needs of its members. Not so much that one day we wont need Jesus for example, but whether people should or should not be circumcized is not a problem anymore.
My only contention is that seeing as how God "Is not the author of confusion." Who is he now directing in the affairs of his church? The Deist's "Clockmaker" is not something I accept as God is an unchangeable being. (I say all this from my own personal beliefs of course.)
If there is a living God and he does direct his followers (as I am sure he does) what process or structure has he setup for this? There are hundreds of thousands of people who have claimed that God spoke to them. Who do we trust and what process does God use to show us who we ought to trust?
I have merely been arguing that God setup the Prophet model long ago whenever his children needed revelation. If there are true prophets then there are also false ones (and I imagine vice versa).
If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My belief is that God uses all of us in directing the affairs of His Church.
Here is something on a Catholic understanding of "apostolic".
quote: Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the mane of "apostolate"; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways. In fact, the Christian vocation is, of its nature a vocation to the apostolate as well.
With the Holy Spirit to guide us. I think that God does speak to all who will listen and that we sometimes get it right and sometimes miss the mark and everything in between.
I think that leadership is important, because any organization requires structure, but that structure is not to be confused with the organization itself.
[ April 28, 2006, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And (though some Catholics are loathe to admit it) even a cursory look at Catholic history will show that Church teaching changes and continues to change (God willing).
There are differences in changing doctrine, changing understanding of doctrine, and changing currents of thought-- all of which might come under the heading of changing "teachings."
Certainly the church is not infallible as a whole... The church burned Joan of Arc at the stake as a witch before it coanonized her as a saint.
I wonder if the church's infallibility is as narrowly defined as the pope's -- e.g. only when explicitly declared?
I don't think it is. I know the official definition is "infallible when teaching on matters of morals or doctrine" but what does that mean from a practical standpoint?
for those of you who don't recall, this particular question is of more than passing interest to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
I don't find it difficult to believe that either (if it's possible to not find something difficult to believe which one does not actually believe), but I also don't find it difficult to believe that Christ would put authority into certain people and allow that authority to succeed to new people without being rigidly tied to the number 12.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim,
From Lumen gentium:
quote: (110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.
So, I suppose that if we ever all agree on anything, we are likely to be right.
Have I mentioned recently that I am crazy about John XXII? (I know he had passed by this time, but he called the Council.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey, Dagonee! Glad you've joined us! We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
So: what does LDS mean by apostasy, specifically, the kind that LDS says took over in the early days of Christianity, leading Christ to "remove his priesthood from the church"? What were the particular beliefs, or nonbeliefs?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
I don't find it difficult to believe that either (if it's possible to not find something difficult to believe which one does not actually believe), but I also don't find it difficult to believe that Christ would put authority into certain people and allow that authority to succeed to new people without being rigidly tied to the number 12.
I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So: what does LDS mean by apostasy, specifically, the kind that LDS says took over in the early days of Christianity, leading Christ to "remove his priesthood from the church"? What were the particular beliefs, or nonbeliefs?
sorry for double posting,
Mormons hold that the authority (they call it "The Priesthood")to speak for and in God's behalf was completely lost as those authorized to do so were all killed/died of old age.
People began ordaining themselves as ministers,bishops, etc and disregarded the established order for such things. They then went on to propagate their own philosophies as God's teachings, many of which survive today (Mormons specifically cite the docterine of the 3 in 1 trinity model)
They made unauthorized changes to gospel ordinances (baptism, sacrament/communion, etc) These alterations destroyed the symbolism of the ordinances, that coupled with the fact people who did not posess the true authority to administer these ordinances, did so anyway.
Mormons hold that in subsequent translations of the Bible, some translators (both intentionally and unintentionally) changed the text of the Bible to such a degree that many of these principles have become obscured as to be difficult to comprehend.
This is a general rundown, I admit my discription of the logic is not the best, but its the best I could do with the time I have. Back to work!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
I'm totally non-expert in such thing.
quote:I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
The point being we don't consider it a change. The apostles passed on their responsibilities, authority, and power. It was the first succession, so it wasn't a change.
quote:Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Well, the fact that we've been doing it this way since St. Peter died makes it seem pretty organized to me. You believe that God told a prophet to do it this way. We believe that Christ told the apostles to do it this way (or, more possibly, authorized Peter to decide specifically how it would be done from a mechanical standpoint). I'm not quite sure how yours is more organized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Sacraments have certainly been administered and received by those that misunderstood or failed to appreciate them. Or even those who have misused them. And administered and received in unorthodox ways, but with good intent. I don't believe that the Sacraments themselves are dependent on our entire understanding of them and I trust they are beyond our ability to harm.
I know that they remain a conduit of God's grace to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
By "Apostacy" Mormons mean a general falling away from the truths and authority established by Jesus and given to his Apostles. There really is no specifics about this to give. The problem we are having here is that it is a theological belief that was never argued by existing facts. Not that I don't believe the fact are there, its just dependant on interpretations.
The background might help. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, listened to the different Christian religions of his day. He noticed the many divisions and sects and wanted to know what Christian church was the correct one to join. He decided the way to find out was to go ask God, who should know if anyone does. The answer to his prayer, according to him, was a direct visit from God The Father and Jesus Christ (seperate entities) who told him none of the Christian Churches were divinely authorized.
After that, Joseph Smith never articulated what was missing, when it was missing, or how it became missing - other than it had to do with the loss of "God's Stamp of Approval" for saving ordinances and theological beliefs. It would be easier to answer the question of "what particular beliefs and non-beliefs" by understanding LDS Theology and comparing them to Orthodox Christianity. Its just too large a topic with too few explanations.
It would help, and I say this not just because I think its a great book, to read "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard L. Bushman. He does a great job exploring Joseph Smith's theological beliefs and developments. And, really, to understand Mormonism is to understand what he taught.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's good to know the LDS opinion on these things. Thanks.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess, kmbboots, for a Latter-day Saint Authority isn't something. It is everything. Without that, no ordinances (no matter how well done, close to the truth, or good the intentions) are acceptable before God. As crude as the comparison might be, for Mormonism you might as well take a bath as be baptised the good things will be if there is no Priesthood Authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional,
I can understand that. But do you see the difference between saying, "Constantine so badly screwed up the Catholic Church that it no longer has 'God's stamp of approval'" and, "Constantine founded the Catholic Church"? One is a matter of theological debate. The latter is a misrepresentation of historical fact.
edit to add: this was in response to the first post.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Authority has been a big thing (although not nearly everything) in Catholicism, too. It still is to many Catholics. Where that authority resides is also something on which faithful Catholics differ.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Personally, I dislike the idea of authority being the be-all-end-all of Mormonism. It isn't.
Christ-like love is the be-all-end-all of Mormonism. Prophecy will end; the church will eventually be dissolved; and even 'authority' will cease to mean anything one day, when all speak authoritatively with God's will.
Priesthood isn't dependent on lineage or blessing, solely-- power in the priesthood relies on the righteousness of its holder.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Priesthood isn't dependent on lineage or blessing, solely-- power in the priesthood relies on the righteousness of its holder.
If that were true, then woman could have the priesthood. If that were true, then "blacks" could of had the priesthood pre 1960s.
Priesthood is defined as a power that is given through blessings. While it is true that it is withdrawn if someone seeks to use it improperly, righteousness is not the "power" of priesthood.
The power and authority of the priesthood is what defines the church as a “restored” church—and that is VERY significant when comparing the church to other religions.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Prophecy will end; the church will eventually be dissolved; and even 'authority' will cease to mean anything one day, when all speak authoritatively with God's will.
You mean that everyone will be prophets, right?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
I'm totally non-expert in such thing.
quote:I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
The point being we don't consider it a change. The apostles passed on their responsibilities, authority, and power. It was the first succession, so it wasn't a change.
quote:Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Well, the fact that we've been doing it this way since St. Peter died makes it seem pretty organized to me. You believe that God told a prophet to do it this way. We believe that Christ told the apostles to do it this way (or, more possibly, authorized Peter to decide specifically how it would be done from a mechanical standpoint). I'm not quite sure how yours is more organized.
Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained. To me this suggests the importance of keeping a full quorum. I don't think the very backbone of the church is the 12 apostles, so much as the idea that if God no longer wanted to use 12 apostles he would have revealed that change in protocol and it would have become binding.
I know of no Pope even that preports to have received such a revelation, so who made that change? (Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling? Again you might argue its the spirit that matters, and not the literalism of the ordinance (maybe so) but its not my job to argue why God designed his ordinances a certain way, its your job to explain who authorized the change, and were they in fact inspired to make that change.
To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem. That problem being either 1 of 2. 1: The Catholic church is not authorized to make the changes it has. Or 2: The proper protocols for making such changes as outlined in the Bible have not been obvserved by anybody (except the Mormons obviously since I personally hold Joseph Smith to be an authorized prophet of God.
I guess I just attribute the mass confusion that exists within Christianity to be a direct result of a lack of guidelines for who can receive actual revelation from God and how.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained.
One was ordained to replace Judas. Do you have any evidence that other ordainations were done to replace someone who died or fell away? Paul is widely regarded as an apostle, and he was ordained while the other 12 (incl. Judas's replacement) were alive.
You ask "who made the change?" What I'm asking is where was the fact "there are 12" raised up over every other common factor the apostle's shared. All 12 were Jewish. Does that mean apostle's must be Jewish?
The Church grew rapidly, thanks in large part to one of the apostles who was in fact the 13th active apostle at the time. Peter was told to run the Church. I don't see anywhere he was told "and keep exactly 12 apostles."
quote:(Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling?
Technically, Latin-rite Catholics baptize by infusion, not sprinkling. Beyond that, your argument here founders at the same place: on the contention that immersion was somehow enshrined as the only way to baptize, even by the apostles.
3,000 people in Acts were baptized at the same place in Jerusalem, in a place where there was not enough water for immersion. There are instructions on baptism that date back to 70 AD that endorse sprinkling or pouring. And there are many uses of the word for baptism that refer to pouring, not immersion.
quote:To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem.
But the changes as evidence of this "larger problem" comes from views of what was in place that lack evidentiary foundation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You mean that everyone will be prophets, right?"
Right, and then some.
I have to agree with lem on this one in respect to Priesthood. Although I understand what you are saying Scott, ultimately the only thing that seperates the LDS Church from other churches - besides some differences in theology - is its belief in the restoration of Priesthood Authority. I think you really need to read "Rough Stone Rolling" to get an idea of how important this point was to Joseph Smith. Of course, you could always argue against the book's major points on this subject. My own studies over the years have confirmed for me the author's major points. Joseph Smith didn't care even half about preaching as much as he did organizing the Church under Priesthood governance.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ultimately the only thing that seperates the LDS Church from other churches - besides some differences in theology - is its belief in the restoration of Priesthood Authority.
And the claim of revelation. The Bible, church history, and philosophy are too vague to answer the questions about immersion, baby baptism, women holding the priesthood, the 12 apostles and whether or not the Catholic church still has the authority from God to act in his name and administer ordinances that would hold any weight when the person actually died and met God.
The core LDS belief is that we have more scripture than other people and we know the answers to these questions and more because God has told us what the answers are and will continue to answer our questions. We don't just have his authority to act in his name to do His will, we have God's ear more than anyone else on Earth. And this is a HUGE difference because it pisses people off because most people entertain the idea that God is unknowable and unapproachable, and LDS don't believe that at all.
It is a big claim and is hard to argue with, because it isn't suppose to be argued with. We aren't in the game of convincing of truth via logic, rhetoric, or historical evidence. We are in the game of convincing via sharing what we enjoy with others. He will let you know if our claims are truth.
In a nutshell.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it pisses people off because most people entertain the idea that God is unknowable and unapproachable
These threads generally go a lot better when you don't try to say what others believe.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Problem is Dagonee, others do believe that. It is what Mormons gets slammed on more than anything else - the nature of God.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:it pisses people off because most people entertain the idea that God is unknowable and unapproachable
These threads generally go a lot better when you don't try to say what others believe.
Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything. I was trying to be un-assertive, in spite of the assertive stance that LDS take. It is a pet peeve of mine when LDS debate, because our possition is that we don't need to and that it is counter productive. Conversation is entirely different, which is what I was trying to do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Occasional, you more than any other poster I can think of post misstatements about others' beliefs in the course of these threads. I would be surprised if many people (edit: non-Mormon Christians) consider God unapproachable - the approachability is one of the major effects of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection. In fact, the belief in the Trinity is at the heart of many Christians' beliefs in the approachability of God, because we believe that God was the one came to us in the Incarnation.
As to knowable, the word has too many connotations. I suspect that most Christians would be able to believe in the statements "God is unknowable" and "God is knowable" at the same time, depending on the specific type of knowing meant.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Well, the different I'm emphasising is the LDS stand on revelation. Here is the LDS belief. We don't believe that Mormons are the only ones who can have a relationship or even speak with God. But our prophet has authority to speak God's will for everyone on Earth. Nobody else has that authority. If anyone else besides our prophet (or your parents) claims to have revelation from God for you, that person is wrong. This is why LDS emphasize authority. But the authority is only half the equation. The other half is revelation and the claim that we have more truth because God has given it to us. The authority gives us the right to push it, er proselytise it to others.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the reason it "pisses people off" is not because everyone else believes God is unknowable and unaproachable but because other people also believe they have revelation from God that contradicts LDS teachings. So it can be annoying when LDS claim that what makes them "different" is that they believe in ongoing revelation.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Well, once it was what made them different. At least I'm told that in the 1800's the larger churches did not believe in revelation.
It would be interesting to me what other churches believed about revelation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You are told wrong. The mainline protestant denominations and the Catholic church certainly believed in revelation in the 1800s. There are some restorationist Protestant churches that believe that all revelation ended with the canonized books of the Bible.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Hm. Well, I'm blaming the BYU professors. At least this is what they think makes them different. Well, I guess they all have their own opinions. I just believed the ones who had these opinions.
Even if most other churches believe they get revelation, I'm still going to say that LDS think they get more and they have priesthood authority and that is what they think makes them different. If everyone is like this, then well, I just I should take a religion class or something.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Of course LDS think they get more. That's why they're LDS. If you thought some other church got more revelation (or interpreted what they got more correctly) you'd be a member of that church.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Oh well. Anyway, what was the question? (I should be going to bed... I can barely spell.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians. That isn't to say you don't believe what you say Christians believe. These days I admit that Christians have a lot of believes that would be considered blaspheme a little more than 50 years ago.
But, I have more than enough evidence to the contrary of what you say mainstream Christians believe. If it wasn't so - why all the theological antagnism against Mormonism by the mainstream Christians? Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion? Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that Dagonee or dkw have misrepresented anything. One thing you might try considering is that Christians don't all think exactly the same thing. Even within a specific denomination.
I, for example, tend to believe in revelation, but not that revelation is usually centralized in one person or group of people. Other Catholics may or may not agree and that's fine. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:why all the theological antagnism against Mormonism by the mainstream Christians? Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion? Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Theological antagonism?
When was the last time some respected Christian religion, with widespread approbation from its leadership or membership published ANYTHING resembling antagonism toward Mormons?
At the very worst these days, we face the Methodist declaration that, unlike other Christian religions, Mormons have to be rebaptized. So what? We say the same thing about Methodists.
That's not antagonism; that's a doctrinal decision that doesn't affect anyone except the ex-Mormon or ex-Methodist.
DKW and Dagonee have both been largely respectful (and sometimes more than we Mormons deserve) of Mormon beliefs. There are few, if virtual behavior is anything to go on, MORE Christian than dkw has displayed herself as being.
So lay off the persecution juice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion?
Because the basic points of agreement between most Christians in the world center on beliefs that Mormon's don't share. Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed; Mormon's don't. The concept of the Trinity isn't minor to most Christians; it's central to their religion. There are other, basic beliefs not shared between Mormons and most Christians.
quote:Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Because they think those beliefs are wrong. But there are a lot of ways to think those beliefs are wrong without holding the beliefs you attribute to them.
Also, the most vocal attacks I've heard against Mormons come from restorationists, whose beliefs come closer to those you assign to most Christians, not reformationists or Catholics.
[ May 01, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But there are a lot of ways to think those beliefs are wrong without holding the beliefs you attribute to them.
The best example of this is the beliefs about what Christ's Church is.
Mormon's believe that the LDS Church is Christ's Church which was not present on earth for almost 2000 years.
Roman Catholics believe that the Church has been present since the Great Commission, and that each Bishop has received authority via apostolic succession in a line traceable to Christ himself. There are disagreements as to the extent of that authority over individual beliefs, but the it's the recognition of the succession that is at the heart of Catholic beliefs about the Church.
(Dana, correct me if I'm wrong here - I'm being general and incomplete on purpose). Reformationists believe that the Church has been present since Christ's time but that it is not bound up with the Roman Catholic structure.
All these beliefs are incompatible. If you believe one is true, then you believe that the other two are not correct, although you might acknowledge some elements of those beliefs as true.
And that's fine. But you can see that Catholics and Protestants will have different reasons for disagreeing with Mormons about the nature of Christ's Church.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Occasional’s post of Apr 26 mentions the idea of errors creeping into the church. Well, I’m not much of a historian so I can’t vouch for the specifics of what has happened anciently. But since I’m a geezer and have been in the Mormon church all my life, I’ve seen numerous cases where unauthorized changes and philosophies tried to creep into the church. This was done by folks who had the best of intentions. In every case I’m thinking of, one of the Quorum of the Twelve or one of their representatives have come to the local area and set the people there straight. That is one of the things regular Stake and Ward Conferences are for - also regular General Priesthood Leadership meetings.
I could give you examples but suffice it to say that I understand how apostasy happens. It is a lot like entropy in physics. It seems to be the natural tendency of human institutions for folks to gradually drift away from the original teaching, practices, and intents of the institution. So I can’t emphasize enough how important the authority and leadership of modern apostles is.
I have tremendous respect for the Catholic church for a lot of reasons. One of which is that they claim an unbroken chain of apostolic authority. In his book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder LeGrand Richards included the following excerpt from a talk by Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. I don’t mean to denigrate the other churches because I have a lot of respect for most of them too. But I think this expresses our position pretty well.
“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.’ ” (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Deseret Book Co., 1950], pp. 3–4.)
When I’ve discussed this with some of my Protestants friends they feel that their authority comes from a knowledge of the Bible. There is a lot to be said for this belief. After all, it is very important for anyone who claims to have priesthood authority to also have a good knowledge of the scriptures.
Kmbboots said, “An argument could be made that Jesus "ordained" Paul on the road to Damascus.”
That is an interesting point. And right off hand I can’t point to a scripture and say, “Right here Paul was ordained an Apostle.” I’ll have to go read those parts again.
But I believe that Jesus COULD have baptized and ordained Paul right there and then. Jesus certainly had the authority to do so. But instead Jesus sent Paul to Ananias to be taught true doctrine and baptized and later ordained. In other words he was sent to the proper authority.
I’ll admit I’m looking at this from the Mormon perspective. Like our fifth Article of Faith says, “We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.”
What can I say? We are real big on line for authority and following proper procedures.
"Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism"
I never thought the Trinity was that important a doctrine, but then, it is in the Creed, so someone must have thought so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained.
One was ordained to replace Judas. Do you have any evidence that other ordainations were done to replace someone who died or fell away? Paul is widely regarded as an apostle, and he was ordained while the other 12 (incl. Judas's replacement) were alive.
You ask "who made the change?" What I'm asking is where was the fact "there are 12" raised up over every other common factor the apostle's shared. All 12 were Jewish. Does that mean apostle's must be Jewish?
The Church grew rapidly, thanks in large part to one of the apostles who was in fact the 13th active apostle at the time. Peter was told to run the Church. I don't see anywhere he was told "and keep exactly 12 apostles."
quote:(Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling?
Technically, Latin-rite Catholics baptize by infusion, not sprinkling. Beyond that, your argument here founders at the same place: on the contention that immersion was somehow enshrined as the only way to baptize, even by the apostles.
3,000 people in Acts were baptized at the same place in Jerusalem, in a place where there was not enough water for immersion. There are instructions on baptism that date back to 70 AD that endorse sprinkling or pouring. And there are many uses of the word for baptism that refer to pouring, not immersion.
quote:To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem.
But the changes as evidence of this "larger problem" comes from views of what was in place that lack evidentiary foundation.
There is no evidence that Paul was ordained as an apostle while all the other original 11 (plus Mathias) were alive. The fates of all the other apostles with the exception of James is very vague. The bible does very quickly mention that Herod had the apostle James (not the Lord's brother) killed by the sword. That would have made room for Paul. That other apostles were similarly matyred or died from the riggors of missionary work/old age is a likely possibility.
The question of only Jewish apostles does not make sense as Christ charged the apostles to bring the gospel to all the world, both jew and gentile. He did not make that charge until He (Christ) had completed his mission. At that point the church was no longer a Jewish one, but one that included people from all races. Peter's revelation on there being no need to observe the law of Moses further supports this idea.
I am not sure what you mean by "infusion" I will try to look it up. You can go to very early cathedrals (such as St John's) in Rome, and there is a baptismal the size of a good sized room. Many eminent scholars agree that only immersion was used initially but that it was unceremoniously changed to sprinkling. As for thousands of Jews being baptized in a place that did not have the water volume to support immersion what Jerusalem do you speak of Dag? There are certainly bodies of water such as where John the baptist baptized, in the area of Jerusalem that support immersion baptism. In fact the NT makes special mention of this John's location "For there was much water there." Mentioning the vast amount of water seems redundant if we are speaking of sprinkling.
You also argue that Peter was not directly charged to keep exactly 12 apostles but he was also not specifically given the liberty to change the way things Jesus had them setup either. Is it more likely that Peter had implied powers that we are not aware of? Or that he used Christ as his model and did things the way Jesus did them? Which seems more effective as a religious administrative model?
I am not arguing that changes CANNOT be made within true Christianity. Indeed if you want to nit pick, Mormons believe John (The Beloved) never tasted death, and today Mormons have 12 apostles plue 3 who comprised the first presidency. So today there are 16 apostles alive today (If John is in fact still alive.) Just as the US constitution is a "Living Constitution" the true Christianity supports a "Living God" that directs the affairs of his church, and makes changes as needed.
I merely contend that I believe there is no proof of devine inspired changes that converted the early christian church to the catholic church of today. I believe the lineage of Popes and their actions do not adequately show a true line all the way to Christ (I could cite individual examples, but I am not here to mud sling) I believe Protestant churches of today are even less adequate at explaining how God can direct them today. If God had more words to impart, individual revelation is just insufficient to the task.
[ May 01, 2006, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, at least in the Catholic Church, it is as likely that those with some central authority err as it is for those of us with very little power. One the one hand, those with centralized authority have resources, knowledge, scholarship, understanding of tradition and have spent their lives learning and preparing for such authority. On the other hand, they are subject to the influences of power and politics in a way that we are not and have often made doctinal decisions that reflect a desire to protect that power.
It is good to have various seats of authority as we do in the Catholic Church. When the Papacy errs, the people can correct it, when the people err, the Bishops can correct it...and so forth. All guided by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
No Trinity: Correct. We believe that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three physically seperate beings.
No Original Sin: Rather, we believe that Christ's atonement removes original sin, and redeems all those who die ignorant of the laws of God.
Christ did not institute baptism: Not EXACTLY true-- we believe that Christ, in his capacity as Jehovah, instituted baptism WAY back with Adam.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
No Trinity: Correct. We believe that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three physically seperate beings.
No Original Sin: Rather, we believe that Christ's atonement removes original sin, and redeems all those who die ignorant of the laws of God.
Christ did not institute baptism: Not EXACTLY true-- we believe that Christ, in his capacity as Jehovah, instituted baptism WAY back with Adam.
What Scott said is totally correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The middle one is the one most directly applicable to baptism, by the way, and, as stated by Scott, indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of baptism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that, at least in the Catholic Church, it is as likely that those with some central authority err as it is for those of us with very little power. One the one hand, those with centralized authority have resources, knowledge, scholarship, understanding of tradition and have spent their lives learning and preparing for such authority. On the other hand, they are subject to the influences of power and politics in a way that we are not and have often made doctinal decisions that reflect a desire to protect that power.
It is good to have various seats of authority as we do in the Catholic Church. When the Papacy errs, the people can correct it, when the people err, the Bishops can correct it...and so forth. All guided by the Holy Spirit.
The problem with that is in theory, God would not have a prophet leading the church if he was going to lead it astray. There is no record in The Bible or Book of Mormon (and you can explain this as you choose to) of a prophet who teaches people false docterine, or leads them astray. They make mistakes sure they are still human, but they never turn evil, or even lose their prophetship because of iniquity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe they just didn't make it into the book?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Because the basic points of agreement between most Christians in the world center on beliefs that Mormon's don't share. Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed; Mormon's don't. The concept of the Trinity isn't minor to most Christians; it's central to their religion. There are other, basic beliefs not shared between Mormons and most Christians.
My personal attitude toward the Trinity issue is, if there were Christians in the world before the Trinity was dogma, who disagreed with the idea, and yet remained Christians, then it is difficult to call rejection of the Trinity idea an "un-Christian" thing to do. At least, if you consider the word "Christian" to represent a broad category of belief systems, and not a specific church organization.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe they just didn't make it into the book?
Or God knowing the disposition of every man, knows which ones will never fall away, posseses the neccesary qualities, and picks them every time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:...indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of baptism.
I would have said it indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of Christ's suffering and death...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians.
Occasional, that makes as much sense as if I told you you were misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. Dag and I are speaking out of the traditions we are a part of, he accused you of mis-representing a tradition of which you are not a part. If either of us start making statements about what Mormons believe, feel free to call us on it if we're wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians.
Occasional, that makes as much sense as if I told you you were misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. Dag and I are speaking out of the traditions we are a part of, he accused you of mis-representing a tradition of which you are not a part. If either of us start making statements about what Mormons believe, feel free to call us on it if we're wrong.
I think the point he is making is that there are still many religious groups that have an animosity towards Mormonism. To say that animosity is decreasing to me is an accurate statement. But there are still notable exceptions. The mention of the methodists requiring Mormons to be rebaptized was cited as an example and refuted to a degree. But I remember clearly reading a few years after the Catholic church stated that protestant converts would not require rebaptism that Mormons would not fall under that category and would still require rebaptism. It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
As a missionary I came across numerous ministers who instructed their congregations to not show hospitality to the Mormon missionaries. They often fed mistruths to their laity (whether they realized it or did not is something I do not know.) Mormon's do not pretend to be the only Christian religion that is spoken badly about, but the sheer number of people I know who have false ideas concerning us makes me believe that there are still people who do it. If you want to argue that virtually nobody does it, I just think thats plain wrong.
But again I would like to restate that I think the animosity directed towards Mormons from others even other Christians is decreasing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
I've never seen much point in trying to be a part of the religious in-crowd; did God make us a peculiar people for no reason at all?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
I've never seen much point in trying to be a part of the religious in-crowd; did God make us a peculiar people for no reason at all?
Not arguing that I care if Catholics recognize the baptism I have had, but you can't say it doesnt have a negative conentation from their end.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
That's pretty much your own choice. The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe they just didn't make it into the book?
Or God knowing the disposition of every man, knows which ones will never fall away, posseses the neccesary qualities, and picks them every time.
Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
No, it's not wrong at all. It's completely RIGHT that they do so.
As for connotations spread by other religions about other religions-- others will know us by the fruits we bear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
That's pretty much your own choice. The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
Not arguing that Mormons do not have the same policy, but Mormons believe in a total apostacy from the truth/church, it would completely undermine all our claims to allow other creeds to baptize. From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
quote: Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
You are making the common error that because God knows something is going to happen he therefore is the cause. I was suggesting that when God picked say "Elijah" to be a prophet, God KNEW that Elijah would perform the office faithfully. He did not MAKE Elijah do anything, Elijah did everything right of his own accord just as God knew he would.
Peter did indeed deny Jesus thrice. Moses caused water to come out of the rock but did not give the glory to God. Joseph Smith (Our prophet) did not follow the Lord's directions regarding some of the first translated pages of the Book of Mormon (116 to be exact) But no prophet, when we consider the sum of their entire life, led anything but a very upright and virtous life. No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it. That is the point I am trying to make.
For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness. If we are to believe scriptural records of prophets, every single one has been that way. There is no record of a prophet being decommissioned for wickedness or eniquity.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't follow (the objection to the Catholic doctrine, on these grounds). Doesn't LDS, too, require Catholics converting to Mormonism to be re-baptized? It may be wrong, but at least it's fair!
Let's see what says the end of that document I linked to (which I should point out is theology, not dogma): "It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect."
Sort of like right here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I don't follow (the objection to the Catholic doctrine, on these grounds). Doesn't LDS, too, require Catholics converting to Mormonism to be re-baptized? It may be wrong, but at least it's fair!
Let's see what says the end of that document I linked to (which I should point out is theology, not dogma): "It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect."
Sort of like right here.
Correct me if I misunderstand the quote. Mormons need rebaptism based on their belief in the Book of Mormon being the word of God and for no other reason?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
The link (and the quote I gave) answered that already: Trinity, original sin, baptism as instituted by Christ. Methodists agree with Catholics on this, Mormons don't.
Really, there's no need to have feelings hurt by being excluded by a church because you choose not to join it! If you want to be a Moslem, you have to witness that Allah is one and Mohammed is his prophet. If you want to be Catholic, you need to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to be in the Sierra Club, you have to pay dues, or something. It's not an insult; it's just a membership requirement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is not my reading of that quote. I would have assumed it had more to do with the trinitarian concept.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't understand. The quote made no mention of the Book of Mormon. Where did that come from?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
The link (and the quote I gave) answered that already: Trinity, original sin, baptism as instituted by Christ. Methodists agree with Catholics on this, Mormons don't.
Really, there's no need to have feelings hurt by being excluded by a church because you choose not to join it! If you want to be a Moslem, you have to witness that Allah is one and Mohammed is his prophet. If you want to be Catholic, you need to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to be in the Sierra Club, you have to pay dues, or something. It's not an insult; it's just a membership requirement.
I mis read the quote, its funny I can actually identify how I misread it too.
Your logic still does not make sense. Mormons are also baptized in the same names. If our concept of who those 3 entities are is different and therefore thats a problem, that makes sense to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here are the Catholic baptismal vows, just for reference:
V. Do you reject Satan? R. I do. V. And all his works? R. I do. V. And all his empty promises? R. I do. V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth? R. I do. V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father? R. I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? R. I do.
[ May 01, 2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here are the Catholic baptismal vows, just for reference:
V. Do you reject Satan? R. I do. V. And all his works? R. I do. V. And all his empty promises? R. I do. V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth? R. I do. V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father? R. I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? R. I do.
Only thing a Mormon could not say yes to would be "Believing in the Holy Catholic Church" if by that you mean the one headed by the Pope.
But then again no Protestant would either.
It must be the concept of the trinity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I don't understand. The quote made no mention of the Book of Mormon. Where did that come from?
Sorry for double posting
I read "Baptism of Mormons" as "Book of Mormon" (classic case of my brain reading for my eyes)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Catholic" in that example shouldn't be capitalized (I should have checked) and means "universal".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
You are making the common error that because God knows something is going to happen he therefore is the cause. I was suggesting that when God picked say "Elijah" to be a prophet, God KNEW that Elijah would perform the office faithfully. He did not MAKE Elijah do anything, Elijah did everything right of his own accord just as God knew he would.
Peter did indeed deny Jesus thrice. Moses caused water to come out of the rock but did not give the glory to God. Joseph Smith (Our prophet) did not follow the Lord's directions regarding some of the first translated pages of the Book of Mormon (116 to be exact) But no prophet, when we consider the sum of their entire life, led anything but a very upright and virtous life. No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it. That is the point I am trying to make.
For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness. If we are to believe scriptural records of prophets, every single one has been that way. There is no record of a prophet being decommissioned for wickedness or eniquity. [/QB]
Well, there is, actually. We just call them "false prophets." We are warned of them in the New Testament and they are referred to in the Hebrew Scripture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Like who? Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness.
Hmm. I disagree. I think there are any number of examples of people who are clearly wicked being called by God. It is the working of God that is great, not the person. Furthermore, there are also innumerable examples of those called of God screwing up and exhibiting character flaws. I think Christians need to be careful not to idealize our history; that's only going to lead to disappointment. What if you run into a member of the Quorum of the 12 and they are rude to you?
Prophets and apostles exhibit any number of admirable qualities; I think, however, that we have to be careful about idealizing them, They're men, just like us, and they'd be the first to tell you so. Nephi certainly does.
quote:No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it.
Hm. I can provide examples from the Mormon tradition of innumerable false doctrines being taught by prophets and apostles. True, there are far fewer examples of this when the qualifier "Thus saith the Lord" is required, but if that is required for true doctrine to be taught, there's been remarkably little of it taught recently, it would seem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, there was whoever convinced the Isrealites to worship the golden calf. Isaiah speaks of "prophets who teach lies", Jeremiah speaks of prophets who "are nothing but wind"and also, "YOu must therefore not listen to your prophets...for they are prophesying a lie to you...". Lamentations has whole sections about false prophets. We are warned against false prophets in Matthew. So I'm thinking they must exist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nobody I think is arguing that false prophets do not exist. But if genuine prophets are teaching false docterines (something I have not seen proven) it completely defeats the purpose of those prophets.
MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
I also cannot think of a single time where a prophet said "Thus saith the Lord" and then taught something later shown to be wrong.
---
Aaron built the golden calf but he was not the PROPHET, Moses was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, do you see how circular this is? If a prophet teaches true doctrine we call him a true prophet; if a prophet teaches false doctrine, we call him a false prophet. The way we judge the truth or falsness of a prophet is by what he teaches. We can't also judge the truth or falsness of what he says by whether he is a true of false prophet. It is what not who.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My personal attitude toward the Trinity issue is, if there were Christians in the world before the Trinity was dogma, who disagreed with the idea, and yet remained Christians, then it is difficult to call rejection of the Trinity idea an "un-Christian" thing to do. At least, if you consider the word "Christian" to represent a broad category of belief systems, and not a specific church organization.
I haven't said anything at all to the effect that Mormons aren't Christian. That doesn't mean that we don't find the doctrine of the Trinity to be terribly important.
quote:I would have said it indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of Christ's suffering and death...
Of course it does. It's plenty important enough to do both. But, of the three, it's the one that most directly affects the conception of baptism.
quote:Not arguing that Mormons do not have the same policy, but Mormons believe in a total apostacy from the truth/church, it would completely undermine all our claims to allow other creeds to baptize. From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
I think it's been covered, but essentially because there are serious differences about the purpose of baptism and the basic beliefs which baptism signals the acceptance of.
Think of a set called "things required for and achieved by baptism." Methodists and Catholics are in agreement about what belongs in that set. Mormons and Methodists/Catholics are not.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
Saul/Paul. Alma the Younger. Judas Iscariot.
I would also point you to innumerable written sources in which LDS prophets and apostles teach doctrine explicitly rejected by President Hinckley in the last priesthood session of General Conference, that being that it was the will of God that men be denied the priesthood due to the color of their skin.
Abinadi in the Book of Mormon teaches trinitarian doctrines explicitly overturned later by the Doctrine and Covenants.
Paul tells us that women shouldn't speak in church.
The point being not that prophets are all bad or fallen, but that they're men, and thus sometimes limited by their own ignorance and capacity to make mistakes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
^^ my head is spinning.
There is no circularness (circularity?) to my logic. If a prophet is called by God its done within certain parameters, and he exhibits a character germane to the role. "By their fruits, ye shall know them."
I don't really have time to outline the "fruits" the scriptures lay out, suffice to say they are there.
The other thing that Mormons hold true is the role of the Holy Ghost in helping us discern truth from error.
Peter speaks of prophets "moved upon by the holy ghost" to say certain things, and those words are to use his words "scripture." To me all scripture is uttered by prophets, but not all the prophets utter is scripture. (By that I mean, prophets can have opinions that are not the word of God, but when they say they speak for God its true)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But we have to decide whether or not a prophet is called by God to say whatever he says, based on what he says. Yes?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB:
quote:MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
Saul/Paul. Alma the Younger. Judas Iscariot.
I would also point you to innumerable written sources in which LDS prophets and apostles teach doctrine explicitly rejected by President Hinckley in the last priesthood session of General Conference, that being that it was the will of God that men be denied the priesthood due to the color of their skin.
Abinadi in the Book of Mormon teaches trinitarian doctrines explicitly overturned later by the Doctrine and Covenants.
Paul tells us that women shouldn't speak in church.
The point being not that prophets are all bad or fallen, but that they're men, and thus sometimes limited by their own ignorance and capacity to make mistakes.
Saul and Alma the Younger both repented before being called by God. Judas became wicked after becoming an apostle. Neither Judas or Saul/Paul were the "Mouthpiece of God" they were apostles. The term Prophet can be confusing but when I say prophet I usually mean "The man chosen by God to say his words" Paul has said things that people hold to be true, but he often says "This is my opinion" and in that context he can say as he pleases.
As for teachings said by prophets/apostles that President Hinckley has refuted. Not one of those utterences (as far as I have seen) was uttered as the word of God. I still need a very specific example of a prophet standing before a congregation and saying "God is/says/thinks....." and it being denied by a later prophet. I am SURE you can find examples of prophets and apostles teaching lessons or saying things in writing that are not accepted by the church, but as Joseph Smith himself said, he, (Joseph) was "Only a prophet when speaking as such."
Abinadi did not teach anything regarding the trinity that is false in my opinion. His teachings all fight perfectly with the description of the trinity in the D/C. I admit I used to not understand how Abinadi's words could be true/accurate. But with guidance and careful study I understand how they are the truth without stretching any definitions or special diction.
To quote Wilford Woodruff one of our own prophets "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."
I personally believe that is a prophetic utternace that will always be true. Interestingly enough that same man said this,
"The Church of God could not live twenty four hours without revelation."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, are you only speaking of your own LDS prophets at this point? Because I mentioned some Biblical false prophets a few posts back.
And (not at all saying that Mr. Woodruff was incorrect) but anyone can say that he will always tell the truth. To use the fact that he said that he would always tell the truth to prove that he would always tell the truth is, once again, circular.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Saul and Alma the Younger both repented before being called by God.
No they didn't. They repented as a result of the call.
quote:The term Prophet can be confusing but when I say prophet I usually mean "The man chosen by God to say his words"
Hmm. If you are arguing that only one person can hold that role, why is Paul in the Bible? Furthermore, why do we sustain the Twelve as prophets?
quote:Paul has said things that people hold to be true, but he often says "This is my opinion" and in that context he can say as he pleases.
quote:"A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such."
Excellent, we agree. And this does account for all the uninspired stuff that past prophets have taught as doctrine. However, it also implies that a prophet is not speaking under inspiration, or the specific will of God, unless he explicitly claims to be. Do you agree with that?
This, of course, is why we have the doctrine of personal inspiration.
quote:Abinadi did not teach anything regarding the trinity that is false in my opinion. His teachings all fight perfectly with the description of the trinity in the D/C. I admit I used to not understand how Abinadi's words could be true/accurate. But with guidance and careful study I understand how they are the truth without stretching any definitions or special diction.
I disagree. Abinadi is clearly a Nicean trinitarian; even a Modalist. And that's fine. I don't think it's necessary to try to read modern Mormon understandings into the past, or to assume that those God has called have equal understandings. In fact, the very concept of continuing revelation implies that nobody _has_ had perfect understanding of God.
quote:Mosiah chapter 15: 1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God• himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth• in flesh he shall be called the Son• of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father•, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because• he was conceived• by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one• God, yea, the very Eternal• Father• of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth• temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged•, and cast out, and disowned by his people•.
The D&C, on the other hand, teaches that God and Christ are two distinct beings, each with a physical body.
The reconciliation I think you are referring to is the concept of divine investiture, in which the Father allows the Son to speak on his behalf and use the title of Father, given their unity of purpose and that Christ is our father in the sense that it is through him that we are born to salvation. However, I don't think that applies to the terms as Abinadi is using them. He's pretty clear that he's talking about one being, two roles.
quote:"The Church of God could not live twenty four hours without revelation."
quote:The other thing that Mormons hold true is the role of the Holy Ghost in helping us discern truth from error.
I would be surprised if there's a Christian on the board who would have a theological problem with either of those things.
Kate, I read the biblical citations you reference as referring to those who claim to be prophets, but are not. As to your post of 5:54, Mormons are taught that we are to seek a confirmation from the Holy Spirit as to who God wishes us to give heed to, and again as we receive direction from him. Thus, we are presumably protected from false teachings. The problem, as you say, comes when we invest more in following the person rather than the teachings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Kate, I read the biblical citations you reference as referring to those who claim to be prophets, but are not. As to your post of 5:54, Mormons are taught that we are to seek a confirmation from the Holy Spirit as to who God wishes us to give heed to, and again as we receive direction from him. Thus, we are presumably protected from false teachings. The problem, as you say, comes when we invest more in following the person rather than the teachings.
Yup. The Bible teaches us that people will fool us - or be wrong, it need not be a deliberate lie, that we have been fooled, and that we can be fooled. Our leaders may be wise, but they are still men and capable of error. So we rely on the Holy Spirit, both as individuals, and as the whole Body of Christ.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MattB - I don't think that Abinadi was a modulist or Trinitarian either. It sounds like it to be sure, but there are too many other parts of his teachings that go against that interpretation. His whole point was to show those he taught that it was not sacriligious to see the Messiah as a God figure.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:It sounds like it to be sure, but there are too many other parts of his teachings that go against that interpretation. His whole point was to show those he taught that it was not sacriligious to see the Messiah as a God figure.
Hm. I think I have to disagree. I just went back and read the relevant chapters, and he gives a modalist (or at least trinitarian) interpretation of the Trinity repeatedly; indeed, every time he might offer a non-trinitarian version, he emphasizes that the Father and the Son are the same being. There's at least one example in every Abinadi chapter. I guess I'm not sure what teachings of his "go against" it. There's a lot of stuff about Christ, but of course none of that is incompatible with either trinitarianism or modalism.
I think I'm going to be reluctant about going into this further or copying any verses because I'm afraid that it's getting a bit too esoterically Mormon.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I mis read the quote, its funny I can actually identify how I misread it too.
Your logic still does not make sense. Mormons are also baptized in the same names. If our concept of who those 3 entities are is different and therefore thats a problem, that makes sense to me.
Sorry, Blade, I understand now.
Anyway. The earlier quote (which is theology, not dogma, so it may not be official church position) said it was because Mormon baptism doesn't relate to the Trinity, and 2 other things (qv). Now, I'm Catholic and I don't get why that's so significant, but that does seem to be the reason here.
---
It really does seem that when we get down to drawing distinctions, we'll find LDS/non-LDS putting qualifications (either "I don't go with the Catholic/LDS/whatever position entirely" or "That's not exactly the position.") Now, I don't know so much about LDS, but I know a lot about Catholic and Protestant, and it's clear to me that the biggest differences there aren't between Catholic and Protestant, any more; it's between liberal Catholics and Protestants on one side and conservative Catholics and Protestants on the other. (By "liberal" here I mean "not believing in miracles, especially the Resurrection," and by conservative I mean the opposite.) There are differences; they don't rise to the level of basics of the faith.
So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon? Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
This is one of what I think is one of the most interesting quotes from Early Church History - as in, Late 1st Century/early 2nd Century Church History.
quote:"I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind,and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death.
One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection.
They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists.
Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
-Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol I, pg 68)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Taalcon, would you mind elaborating on why you find it interesting? I do, as well, but am curious to hear your take on it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon?
There are few liberal Mormons, in the sense of disagreeing to some degree with accepted LDS interpretations of biblical events, and they often don't stay Mormon for long. The church, particularly in the last 50 years, has veered away from religious pluralism in favor of doctrinal uniformity. My perception is that the latitude for dissent is significantly less than in other major Christian denominations.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: (By "liberal" here I mean "not believing in miracles, especially the Resurrection," and by conservative I mean the opposite.)
Whoa. I have never heard a liberal Christian say they don't believe in miracles, especially the Resurrection. I don't believe that is anywhere near an accurate description of liberal theology. I agree that there's a big split between conservative and liberal Christians, but that ain't it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe EXTREME liberalism ("Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not divine) vs. EXTREME fundamentalism ("The Bible is one big hunka literal!")
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yikes! I am with ElJay. That is not how any liberal Catholic I know (including myself) defines liberal. I cannot fins words to express how vital the Resurrection is to me.
In my experience, liberal Catholics tend to be very concerned with social justice matters and less concerned with a rigid adherence to rules or obedience to strict authority.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Taalcon, would you mind elaborating on why you find it interesting? I do, as well, but am curious to hear your take on it.
Those who believe firmly that they have the Truth, and that this Truth is important, have always found correction more important than diplomacy.
There are most likely very many for whom this letter was not recieved happily.
The biggest problems in the Church at this time were problems of division. In this letter and in his others, Ignatius warns people not to remove their righteous Bishops that were either appointed directly by the Apostles, or by those the apostles had appointed. He warns against hearkening more to popular opinion and philosophy than the words of those who have been appointed (and taught by those) with authority. 'Hiring' their leaders based on popularity of what they were saying was a big no-no.
Many of the points he makes are still brought up in theological debate today, as evidenced here in this thread: "They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten...Some of them say ...that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
In reading through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers/Ante-Nicene fathers, it's interesting how firmly non-Trinitarian they were, making firm that the Son is literally distinct from the Father, and subject to Him.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
According to the folks who study the history of theology, the liberal-conservative split began around 1800 and had to do with reactions to “modernity,” including modern science and philosophy. Those who believe that theology should be in dialogue with science and philosophy are “liberal,” those who believe theology should ignore science and philosophy are “conservative.” Obviously the terms have evolved somewhat since then, and they were never completely absolute to begin with (otherwise everyone who took Galileo seriously and conceded that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth would be “liberal”) but they still have a lot more to do with theological method than with particular beliefs about miracles or the resurrection.
And it’s complicated by the fact that the words “liberal” and “conservative” are used for so many different axes. In the same way you can be an economic liberal and a social conservative, (or the reverse) you can be a theological conservative and a social or economic liberal (or other combinations). So the term “liberal Christian” isn’t really particularly descriptive. Does it mean a Christian who votes Democrat? One who favors National health insurance? One who follows Tillich’s method of correlation in theological dialogue? One who supports keeping abortion legal? All of the above or any combination thereof?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks, Taalcon.
FWIW, I find the part about "the same person" to be rather telling myself, but in the opposite direction. Probably a function of our respective churches' present positions Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
"Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense. (And I know "liberal Catholic" means something different, but I used it in the Protestant sense.)
I need more sleep. I couldn't figure out why philosophy would be different to people with LD's... Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This is one of what I think is one of the most interesting quotes from Early Church History - as in, Late 1st Century/early 2nd Century Church History.
quote:"I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind,and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death.
One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection.
They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists.
Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
-Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol I, pg 68)
A very interesting read, I admit I am partial because it confirms my own personal beliefs,
Early Christian literature to me is very interesting. I remember watching a movie called "The Mission" and there is a cardinal inspecting the Christians and he asks the native american priest how much he is making on one of their farming projects and the priest responds "oh, I don't make anything, we have everything in common" and the cardinal responds "ah yes, there is a radical sect in France trying that out." and the priest responds "oh no sir! it was a practice of the early christians."
Its funny how ideas such as socialism and a progressive church that adapts to the needs of the modern man seem like liberal ideas, when they in fact hail back to antiquity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:"Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense.
As was I, as should be evident from my first paragraph. I added the second because Kate seemed to be using it more in the sense of social liberalism, although they are related.
The article from wiki is not bad, although I can't see how you got from that to "doesn't believe in miracles, especially the resurrection."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: "Liberal" and "conservative" are just words, of course, but let's not be confused: I wasn't referring to political liberalism/conservatism. I was using them in the theological sense. (And I know "liberal Catholic" means something different, but I used it in the Protestant sense.)
Nobody else was talking in the political sense, either. Nobody responding to you is confused. We are telling you that liberal theology does not mean what you are saying it means. In fact, that wiki article you linked doesn't say "doesn't believe in miracles, especially the resurrection" either. You are severely mischaracterizing liberal theology. And I'm also talking from a Protestant viewpoint.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Will, I was using them theologically, too, although not historically (as dkw pointed out). I was referring to the way liberal Catholics (at least as the term is commonly meant today) tend to view their relationship with the hierarchy, the role of the laity, ecumenicism, liturgy, the relationship between Church and State and all matter of other theological issues.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I pointed out I wasn't talking about political viewpoints because dkw gave a paragraph on them.
And, as I said, they're just words. To say I'm mischaracterizing liberal Christianity here is like saying I'm mischaracterizing flefnobium, before defining flefnobium.
I didn't use Wikipedia as a source, but it's surprising to hear that miracles have nothing to do with this split *based* on that source.
Liberal: "... willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)"
Conservative: "The resurrection of Christ is seen as a historical event."
Liberal: "the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible" -- which allows for disbelieving Biblical miracles; I suppose liberal Christians could keep the miracles and discard, say, the moral teaching, but I've never heard of it happening
Conservative: "A belief in the authority of the Bible and a belief that it is an incontrovertible source of God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy and Bible inerrancy are typically affirmed."
Again, Wikipedia isn't the sacred writ, but I have to wonder how someone can read that and conclude that these articles draw no link between belief in miracles and the two terms in question.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Probably based on the first point in the list "internal diversity of opinion ." So for you to conclude that one point later in the list is definitional is mischaracterization.
Added to which, any summary list of "characteristics" is going to be the least accurate part of the article. Have you read works by any of the theologians listed? Particularly the historical ones -- since theiy're who destinguished "liberal" theology -- Schleiermacher, Bultmann, von Harnack, Tillich, Niebuhr . . .?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There are few liberal Mormons, in the sense of disagreeing to some degree with accepted LDS interpretations of biblical events, and they often don't stay Mormon for long. The church, particularly in the last 50 years, has veered away from religious pluralism in favor of doctrinal uniformity.
But do they just become Mormons who are no longer affiliated with the church? Or do they give up their beliefs entirely because the LDS church won't let them disagree? It seems kinda strange to me to give up one's religion just because a church says you need to either take all of it or leave all of it. If the Methodist Church insisted that I accept everything, to the letter, that the church proclaimed to be true, then I'd leave the Methodist Church but I wouldn't stop believing what I do. So, is it possible there are more liberal Mormons out there that are simply pushed out of the church but that still hold their Mormon beliefs?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
But are they Mormon beliefs? In your hypothetical, do you have Methodist beliefs, or a set of beliefs that resemble Methodist beliefs in some ways, and diverge in others?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Will, I am going to assume you are asking about Protestant liberal/conservative here. As you know, Biblical literalism is not a characteristic of even conservative Catholicism.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's not a characteristic of all conservative Protestantism either, no matter what Wiki thinks.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that the LDS church is not as strict in its enforcement of doctrinal unity as some apparently think. There is a great deal of divergence of opinion on many important beliefs, and neither disciplinary action nor excommunication is used to enforce one stance or the other. There is a certain core set of beliefs which are essential to Mormonism without which one may be kicked out of the church- but only if one insists in proselytizing their views. These include things like the obvious beliefs that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.
There are people who go to church, for the social aspect I suppose, who do not believe these things. And yet they may remain members of the church as long as they do not actively try to convert people to their views.
The LDS church has room for a great deal of varied opinion, but as with any community, there are certain required views without which it is absurd for one to consider oneself a "mormon".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But do they just become Mormons who are no longer affiliated with the church? Or do they give up their beliefs entirely because the LDS church won't let them disagree?
There are certainly both types of individuals. I think there are many of the second type whose de-conversion occurs like this: they become enamoured of doctrine X. They introduce it in church and are told it is incorrect. They think, "Doctrine X is true. Our prophets should know it's true. If they don't, they must not be true prophets. Therefore, the church they lead is false." Whether this is logical or not, I think it's the way many people lose their testimonies. Their beliefs come into contradiction and they choose to sacrifice a belief in "Mormonism" (based on the doctrinal infallibility of prophets) in order to maintain their doctrine X.
My original point, though, was slightly different. I believe it's probably more difficult to find doctrinal diversity in a discussion between active (i.e. regular church-attending) Mormons than in a similar discussion between church-going Catholics, or Methodists, or what have you.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Jacare-
But if someone in Mormon Sunday School lesson were to, for instance, express doubt about the reality of Christ's miracles, how would the class react? Uncomfortably, I think. Or if someone were to claim Abinidi was a trinitarian (as a hat-tip to MattB)? I believe the structure of the church discourages diversity of expressed opinion, even about non-core beliefs (e.g. the literalism of the Bible).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
There are three main reasons a person is excommunicated from the Church (this doesn't count those who just leave), starting with the most common. The first is behavioral, such as adultery. A distant second is challenge to authority, such as a belief that the Church really isn't divine and therefore priesthood authority is false. The third reason is so rare that I can't even think of an example; theological differences. Usually, however, the people with the third reason leave the Church on their own either to form a new religious group or more commonly join another or none at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think doubt is fine, and I think that Sunday School, ideally, would be a place that is safe enough that people could share how they feel about the beloved collective religion.
I do think that there is a definite culture of only-Sunday-school-answers here in classes sometimes, but I've also seen it where it was otherwise. I'm thinking of that Relief Society where everyone went around saying how knowing that they'll see family members again makes grief easier to bear, and I disagreed strongly. That wasn't a problem at all.
I think a lot of it is in presentation sometimes. If the dissenter thinks of and treats the other people in the class as well-intentioned fellow seekers, I think that comes across, and the unorthodox views are more acceptable than if the dissenter feels aggrieved.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It is better to teach people to think critically in Sunday School rather then push your own personal agenda.
Teaching about say the reality of Christ's miracles is not something open to debate because Mormons accept that Jesus was the literal son of God empowered to do all the the Bible/Book of Mormon says he did. The whole system collapses if Jesus was not of divine nature.
I have been to many Sunday School classes were contraversial topics have been debated, such as The Word of Wisdom "A health code with some strict guidelines." There was alot of debate as to a literalist interpretation was more in line with the spirit of the law, or if the law was in fact a system for examining ones lifestyles and therefore implied that certain things were good and bad.
Mormons believe in a concept of gradual education as in "line upon line, precept upon precept." It is believed that by obeying the principles you have learned to be true through the Holy Ghost, you will be entrusted with greater knowledge. This then obligates you to live your life according to that increased knowledge in order to obtain more. This is the method of happiness, eternal increase in knowledge and power.
Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
I imagine that this assumption, in and of itself, suppresses much debate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Debate is fine in Mormon culture, but it does take on a more subdued role seeing as how everyone listens to the same Holy Ghost, certain precepts and docterines simply are not neccesary to debate for that reason.
I imagine that this assumption, in and of itself, suppresses much debate.
Indeed.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Teaching about say the reality of Christ's miracles is not something open to debate because Mormons accept that Jesus was the literal son of God empowered to do all the the Bible/Book of Mormon says he did. The whole system collapses if Jesus was not of divine nature.
This is exactly the sort of reasoning I meant when I said the structure of our church discourages dissent. In your view, if I read it right, if the miracles didn't happen then "the whole system collapses." If you became convinced (hypothetically) that the miracles didn't in fact happen, you'd find it hard to continue being a Mormon, because of the implicit integrity we assume about everyone being capable of ascertaining and understanding the same truths.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, kmbboots, I didn't mention Biblical literalism, but you're right in that I wasn't using liberal/conservative in a Catholic context (despite being Catholic).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, Will, I was getting that from this:
quote: Liberal: "the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible" -- which allows for disbelieving Biblical miracles; I suppose liberal Christians could keep the miracles and discard, say, the moral teaching, but I've never heard of it happening
Conservative: "A belief in the authority of the Bible and a belief that it is an incontrovertible source of God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy and Bible inerrancy are typically affirmed."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Oops! My mistake.
However, it's not that conservative Protestants identify with Biblical literalism (although I'm sure some do), but that liberal Protestants identify themselves as rejecting it. (I consider this a change of topic from the miracles distinction, but that's what Internet's for ...) Thing is, I can't see this as a real point of contention, because *nobody* is a Biblical literalist, even if he claims to be. Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold; nobody asks where the hinges are installed.
One interesting bit from Catholics is this point: that conservative Protestants who do call themselves literalists (by misunderstanding the word "literal," IMJ) don't take John 6 literally. Unless you eat my flesh and drink by blood ...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
They might consider themselves literalists more in the vein of, "Jesus actually said this" or, "Jesus actually did that." Jesus was dead for literally the course of 3 seperate days, then actually rose from the dead. Judas literally kissed Jesus as a signal to the Romans of who Jesus was. You can agree that Jesus often used metaphors and symbolism rather than straight lecturing to articulate his gospel. That does not mean you have to believe His acts, as chronicled, did not happen the way they are literally written.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There needs to be a term for what you describe, BlackBlade. "Inerrantist" is clunky, but seems to fit the bill.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote: So the question is: is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon?
Well, using dkw's definition of "those who believe that theology should be in dialogue with science and philosophy are 'liberal,'" I am a liberal Mormon.
I see no reason why God could not have created man through evolution.
I think that as time goes on, and we discover more about the way the world works, science and religion will come closer and closer to agreeing.
I think that there are reasonable, rational, scientific explanations for miracles, even if we do not know what they are yet.
I believe that the universe operates under certain natural laws which even God has to abide by. He just knows more about those laws than I do, and therefore some of His actions appear to be miraculous and unexplainable. For example: the marriage at Cana and turning water to wine. Now, we know that there is a natural way to do this. Grapevines turn water into grape juice all the time. I believe that Christ knew enough about this process to be able to change the water to wine instantaniously, without the intermediaries of grapevines and winepresses. It is just the fact that none of the rest of us know how to do such a thing that makes it miraculous.
However, I don't know that any of these beliefs are out of line with official Church doctrine. So I don't know how liberal of a Mormon that makes me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That is the rub. Mormons are pretty much stuck in the middle of the liberal/conservative religious discussion. You look at some things and a majority of Mormons can seem extremely conservative. Yet, a closer look at something else and you find them to be liberal. So, before you can answer the question is there such a thing as a "liberal" Mormon, you have to answer the question of what you mean by conservative and liberal.
As an example: Mormons are literalists in that they believe the events portrayed in the Scriptures really happened. Yet, at least philosophically even if not in practice, that doesn't mean that the Scriptures are the literal explanation of events or that there aren't other viewpoints or information that could be added. Mormons would be perfectly fine with a scientific explanation of the plagues of Moses. Just as long as the scientific and social explanations aren't used as an attack on the divine reality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's only a problem if you someone insists that the entire theology and practice of millions of people can be summed up in one word.
People are complex. It shouldn't be a surprise that millions of people do not fit into fascilly-defined categories.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's only a problem if you someone insists that the entire theology and practice of millions of people can be summed up in one word.
Kat
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not sure what the best way for dividing Mormons is. Liberal and Conservative just doesnt do it for me.
There are the Mormons who think on the fringe and try to figure out the answers to questions not yet revealed. As long as they don't get swallowed up in the confusion that often attends such an effort thats perfectly fine.
On the opposite end of the spectrum there are the Mormons who say "Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a prophet, President Hinckley is the prophet today, and The Book of Mormon is the word of God, everything else does not pertain to my salvation so I do not worry about it."
Those people can live happy lives so long as when the prophet reveals something radical comes along that rocks the boat, they do not get bent out of shape because they didn't learn it as the gospel growing up. One interesting point is that Mormons all believe that a law of consecration (a sort of eutopian socialism) will be instituted one day before Jesus comes again. It will be VERY interesting how many people actually embrace it when it is instituted as it was tried once and failed.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What about a Mormon who drinks Coke? I have a friend who does. He interprets the "hot drinks" thing as a warning against addiction. Sounds iffy to me, but then I don't know the text.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think that as time goes on, and we discover more about the way the world works, science and religion will come closer and closer to agreeing.
I think that there are reasonable, rational, scientific explanations for miracles, even if we do not know what they are yet.
My Father, as a young medical student, could not reconcile his studies with the teaching of a resurection. It just wasn't possible. So, he "put it on a shelf" and didn't worry about it. Years later, when DNA was discovered, and we started to understand how genetic information is stored and utilized by Nature. He took it "back down off the shelf" shined it up and was very happy to accept a literal resurection as a thological and scientific fact for him. I think many, of not most, of us do that kind of thing all the time.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I would add a couple more categories to BlackBlade's spectrum.
There are those who try to expand their knowledge primarily through secular sources of information, such as history, archaeology, physics, genetics, etc. I tend to spend at least some of my time in this category
There are those to try to expand their knowledge by examining the scriptures with a fine-toothed comb and reading everything written on a subject by General Authorities both old and new. Personally, I think this method has its limits, since everyone, even General Authorities, has his own take on the specifics of arcane doctrine and speculation, and it is far too easy to read meanings into a text that were never intended to be there. But I think I'm in the minority
Then there are people who believe that the best way to learn and understand the doctrines of the gospel is to live them. The arcane details out on the fringes are far less important than the practical realities of trying to put the gospel to work. I try to spend as much of my time as I can in this category.
Then there are people who really don't care I try to stay out of this one
[ May 05, 2006, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
One of the things I'm curious about is:
Just what does it take for someone to get excommunicated from the Catholic Church? What does he have to do to warrent that?
For that matter, what about the various Protestant churches and the Muslim religion?
I got curious about this a while back during the news media feeding frenzy over the pedophile priests scandals. It seemed amazing to me at the time that there was even any question about a guy remaining in the priesthood or even maintaining his membership in the church. Of course I realize that the Catholic Church does things differently than I'm used to. And then again the news media doesn't always condescend to report the full story. So maybe those guys did get the boot and I just didn't hear about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If this were going to be the basis for a decision you're going to make, more research is needed. As a guide to the curious, it's adequate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It seemed amazing to me at the time that there was even any question about a guy remaining in the priesthood or even maintaining his membership in the church.
The Catholic Church is very big on forgiveness. Even those things on the automatic list can be forgiven and the excommunication removed, although it likely requires public acknowledgment of correction.
Edit: Please don't interpret my statements to be comparative to any other church's emphasis on forgiveness. I'm not sayong the Catholic Church empahsizes it more or less than others.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
That is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
<Bump> Because someone had questions that this might help answer.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
it to others.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I should be going to bed... I can barely spell.)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Kat