I have a couple sort of related topics. At least, they mention the same religion. The first is a story that I was asked to move to its own thread because it interfered with where I put it originally.
As the saying goes, reality is stranger than fiction. As a member of this person's religion I am ashamed and think he might have a few emotional problems. However, I must say that his bank robbing persona is very . . . interesting.
First you have what he did as a criminal:
quote:The Los Angeles Police Department alleges Rodriguez snatched close to half a million bucks out of bank vaults throughout the northeast San Fernando Valley.
Then, you look closely at some of the things he did and said:
quote:"He said, 'I spent a little on myself, then I went down to Skid Row and handed it out,'" Guillory said. "He went on to tell us about all the rest of the robberies."
She'd been tracking him for months, based on DNA evidence obtained from the scarf he used to cover his face in an earlier robbery in Van Nuys. He'd scribbled lines from the Book of Mormon inside alluding to 1st Nephi 3:7. Guillory asked him about the passage, and he said he belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I guess he missed the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that basically says no wrong can make a right, or rather the ends do not justify the means.
The whole article is worth a read.
------
Now for the other topic. Maybe I should split these two into seperate threads, but I didn't want to overdue it with the Mormon theme. I think the Hatrack participants are intelligent enough to have two conversations going on at once. They do it all the time.
I can't say a poll has actually been done, but it sounds like Mormons are getting very tired of Evangelicals. There has been a list of blog entries in the "blogernacle" (LDS affiliation of blog writers) that have bemoaned the treatment of Mormons by the hand of Evangelicals in the public sphere.
This rather Conservative blogger thinks Evangelicals should think twice about how they are treating Mormons, possibly turning them Democrat. Probably unlikely.
It seems to be getting to the point that a negative comment aboutgetting to know Evangelicals is coming from a usually unemotional blogger.
Now, Mormons have always been less than happy with that particular set of orthodox Christianity, but it was always an under the breath sort of way. That subtle displeasure could be changing into a more open exchange of feelings, although I have no idea what that would mean. In fact, that is the point of bringing the subject up.
Could it hurt the Republican Party if Mormons "walk out" in protest? Would they and could they? If they do, where would or could they go? I don't think the political ramifications of this has been discussed much, if there is one.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Some of us were never part of the Republican party to begin with.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and my cousin and his wife are Evangelical Christians, and we get along just fine. We actually agree on more issues than we disagree on. And we have a mutual agreement: they don't leave/to "Do you know Christ?" pamphlets for/to me, and I don't offer them the Book of Mormon or send the missionaries to see them.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The first is a story that I was asked to move to its own thread because it interfered with where I put it originally.
Where did you put it originally?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani is what pushed me to get behind McCain. I guess that makes me vindictive or something.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Funny, Pat Robertson doesn't affect my vote one way or the other. He simply doesn't have any power over me.
I'm still voting Guiliani because of all the republican candidates, he's the friendliest to gays.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
His campaign headquarters for the region (meaning, the state of CA) are on the floor above my husband's work (his boss owns the building.) KPC met him and shook hands the other day. I told him to ask what he's gonna do to fix healthcare but he chickened out. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think some of the anger with evangelicals comes from the politics. Evangelicals seem more then willing to accept LDS when it comes to voting, but there is still that clear animosity. I get the feeling that a lot of LDS are going, "we're good enough when you need are vote, but you still think its ok to have classes on how we are evil devil worshippers trying to drag you and your children down to hell with us."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Although very apologetic, the sentement that no Evangelical (or anyone else) has a right to define who is a Christian or not is growing among LDS.
I think this request comes from poor consideration of the subject. LDS see themselves as "LDS", and anybody who believes in Christ as "Christian." To them, the more important distinction is "LDS", and they refuse to accept other groups that claims to be Mormons as any type of Mormon. To a Methodist, a Baptist, etc. being "Christian" is far a more important distinction than whatever Christian church you happen to go to. So that's the name that they try to protect. For most Protestant churches, it doesn't matter if you're baptized in their church, so long as you're baptized in a Christian church. For this reason, it is important for them to define what it is to be Christian. LDS getting angry about this seems quite hypocritical to me.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If Christian doesn't mean someone who believes in Christ, what does it mean?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: If Christian doesn't mean someone who believes in Christ, what does it mean?
If "Democrat" doesn't mean someone who believes in Democracy, what does it mean?
Seriously though, the Christians who believe that Mormons are not Christian believe that Mormons, regardless of what they claim about believing in Christ, do not follow Christ's teachings in the same way that you probably would not refer to someone who sacrificed virgins in front of a crucifix as Christians, regardless of whether they claimed to believe in Christ or not.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: If Christian doesn't mean someone who believes in Christ, what does it mean?
If "Democrat" doesn't mean someone who believes in Democracy, what does it mean?
Seriously though, the Christians who believe that Mormons are not Christian believe that Mormons, regardless of what they claim about believing in Christ, do not follow Christ's teachings in the same way that you probably would not refer to someone who sacrificed virgins in front of a crucifix as Christians, regardless of whether they claimed to believe in Christ or not.
Todd Friel of 'Way of the Master Radio' summed it up nicely. (Quoting from memory.)
'I don't know what Jesus the Mormons follow, but it's not MY Jesus!"
Don't you love the Christian charity?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Guess what I'm going to say!
It is more complicated than that.
For most Christian denominations, the particular, technical, formal, theological definition, "Christian" means someone who believes in the Trinity, that Jesus and God are the same. That Jesus is, "One in being with the Father".
For a common usage definition, I would certainly include LDS under the general term of "Christian".
I would not presume to speak for the Evangelicals. Ever.
Posted by Fluffy_Kitten (Member # 11203) on :
quote: Although very apologetic, the sentement that no Evangelical (or anyone else) has a right to define who is a Christian or not is growing among LDS.
Maybe LDS can help 'evangelicals' see the error of their ways. I mean, I think the disagreement is that in order to be a Christian, you can only believe in certain things, right? Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon? Maybe let people decide for themselves and quit trying to ram their definition of what it is to be Mormon down everyone else's throats.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:For a particular, technical, formal, theological definition, "Christian" means someone who believes in the Trinity, that Jesus and God are the same. That Jesus is, "One in being with the Father".
Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
quote:Maybe LDS can help 'evangelicals' see the error of their ways. I mean, I think the disagreement is that in order to be a Christian, you can only believe in certain things, right? Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon? Maybe let people decide for themselves and quit trying to ram their definition of what it is to be Mormon down everyone else's throats.
I think the problem is that prominent people outside the Mormon church are deciding what Mormons do and don't believe in, and helpfully broadcasting their opinions to large audiences. Although I don't think Mormons in general are quite so on the defensive as Occasional is implying.
With Mitt Romney running for president, the country is hearing more about Mormons than it usually does. I think the media, not the church, might be ramming it down everyone else's throats.
Posted by Fluffy_Kitten (Member # 11203) on :
Well, the point is that everyone's opinions on what is and isn't part of a religion are valid, isn't it?
quote: Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
quote: I think the problem is that prominent people outside the Mormon church are deciding what Mormons do and don't believe in, and helpfully broadcasting their opinions to large audiences. Although I don't think Mormons in general are quite so on the defensive as Occasional is implying.
With Mitt Romney running for president, the country is hearing more about Mormons than it usually does. I think the media, not the church, might be ramming it down everyone else's throats.
Likewise, prominent people outside the Christian church are deciding what Christians do and don't believe in. If general definitions are true, then the general populace should decide what being LDS means, not adhere to some narrow definition, and not let the media or one group define what being a Mormon means, no?
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
As a member of the said Mormon Church, and as a former missionary for that church. I can't tell you how sick I got of people trying to tell me I was going to hell for believing things that I didn't even believe in the first place.
In our church we don't hold bible studies entitled "The Deceptive ways of the Baptist" I would appreciate it if other churches wouldn't hold similar classes about us. All that they do is inflame and decieve with twisted doctrines mostly from embittered former mormon teachers.
I do consider myself a Christian as a follower of Christ. I don't appreciate it when people tell me that I'm not.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I think it's just groups of people that are sure they're right clashing. It's never happened before and it won't ever happen again.
That said, Evangelicals and Mormons are obviously both wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Afr, the reason that is such an important point dates back to at least the fourth century c.e.. When Constantine made Christianity "official" the exact things that Christians believed were also codified and made official. That Jesus is one in being with the Father, that Jesus is entirely God and entirely man was a very big deal. Seriously. This was important. People died over this. It is fundamental.
Does that help?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yeah, Constantine is the one who decided what it meant to be Christian, you mean? I think we LDS feel like we're going more with Christ's definition, which we feel has more authority than Constantine's. Does that make sense?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, not exactly. Constantine didn't decide. Put more simply, Constantine made the early church get together and make what it believed official.
Look, all I am doing is providing a little historical background. Most Christian sects mean something fundamentally different than LDS (and a couple other sects) when we talk about Christ.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
Fluffy_Kitten, I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of everyone deciding what one given religion believes and doesn't. That doesn't make sense to me. An organized religion tends to govern its own set of doctrine and practices, and those aren't usually open to vote or debate by the general populace.
As far as giving everyone their right to think what they want to about the LDS church and its beliefs, and even promote those opinions...fine, but that doesn't mean they're correct, and won't necessarily be valued the same as, say, official statements by the church itself, or statements from some expert. In defining what the church means to yourself, or what it means to a society, I guess that's still up for grabs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
It's both. Depending on the context and who is using the term and for what purpose.
Posted by Fluffy_Kitten (Member # 11203) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, yeah, I know about the doctrine of the Trinity and in general how it was settled on. I'm surprised that it's what being Christian means, though. It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings? That's what I'm confused about.
Fluffy_Kitten, I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of everyone deciding what one given religion believes and doesn't. That doesn't make sense to me. An organized religion tends to govern its own set of doctrine and practices, and those aren't usually open to vote or debate by the general populace.
As far as giving everyone their right to think what they want to about the LDS church and its beliefs, and even promote those opinions...fine, but that doesn't mean they're correct, and won't necessarily be valued the same as, say, official statements by the church itself, or statements from some expert. In defining what the church means to yourself, or what it means to a society, I guess that's still up for grabs.
Their religion defines Christianity as X.
You and OSC and other Mormons seem to want them to base their definition of what it means to be a Christian on Y because, to paraphrase, that's what everyone else generally believes.
I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths legitimately Mormon, or LDS, or whatever. You don't take polls from non-Mormons on what your religion believes is true and where spiritual authority comes from, and neither do they. You've already acknowledged this, so I'm unclear as to why you persist in thinking that your appeals are going to do anything.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My problem with the analogy of LDS defining who is LDS vs Evangelicals defining who is Christian is that LDS is a specific religion, Christian is an umbrella term. Cat is to animal as LDS is to Christian (or Baptist is to Christian). A cat can define who is a cat, LDS can tell who is LDS, but a cat can't define who is an animal.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths . . . "
Because of the political and moral implications. It has consiquences that are far more than simply theological. When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation. Just look at the word you used, "loathe," that denotes more than a disagreement over terms. It is a statement of hostility.
The second thing is something far more viceral for a Mormon. When Mormons hear "non-Christian" what they hear is more than a denial of the Trinity. It is a way to dismiss the very heart felt and absolutely unquestionable devotion to a Deity that, regardless of what its detractors say, is a personal Savior and center of Worship. It is like saying Jews don't really worship G-d because they don't hold to the Trinity. After all, if Christians are to be consistant, then they should call everyone who doesn't hold the Trinitarian concept atheists. That is NOT going to be taken well by others.
"Perhaps it would be helpful if Mormons started with their own little religion and let people they considered outside the real faith say what is and isn't Mormon?"
I would love that to be the case and see it all the time. Let them if there is at least a tangable reason for doing so, such as a belief in the Book of Mormon. I am frustrated by the mainstream Mormon Church trying to get people to not call the fundimentalist polygamists who trace the faith to Joseph Smith as not Mormon. It is hypocritical and disgusting! I don't care if the LDS Church is trying to send a message that they don't practice polygamy anymore by doing that, it isn't right! Now, if the polygamist groups want to be called "Mormon" is another matter. If they don't, and I have never known anyone ask them, maybe they shouldn't.
"People died over this."
Maybe more people should die over this. I know in the past Mormons have.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is that really the "true" definition? It seems to focus on one narrow aspect of mainstream Christian theology. I would think it would be more general.
To many people it's not "narrow." If there's anything that frustrates me about these conversations, it's the tendency to have what I consider to be important in my faith defined by someone who doesn't share it.
The best short summary I can give is that "one in being with the Father" is an essential element of the atonement. It touches on every single aspect of our faith.
quote:It's a fundamental doctrine of many churches, yes, but is it really the doctrine of the Father and the Son being one that means Christianity, or is it the more general belief in Christ and his teachings?
It's the doctrine of the Father and Son - as well as all the other doctrines this impacts - that determines how the word is used within the context of my faith. It is the general belief in Christ and his teachings that determines how the word is used outside my faith.
In other words, what kmboots said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "I don't understand why you and other Mormons don't understand why some other religions are as loathe to call you Christians as you would be to call other faiths . . . "
Because of the political and moral implications. It has consiquences that are far more than simply theological. When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation. Just look at the word you used, "loathe," that denotes more than a disagreement over terms. It is a statement of hostility.
Well, now that is a problem that we should be addressing.
quote:
"People died over this."
Maybe more people should die over this. I know in the past Mormons have.
Really? You think death and killling is better than understanding some history and recognizing that words can have different meanings in different contexts?
Now that does strain my concept of "Christian".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Cat is to animal as LDS is to Christian (or Baptist is to Christian). A cat can define who is a cat, LDS can tell who is LDS, but a cat can't define who is an animal.
I understand that that's your perspective. I don't agree that that is the perspective of many Christian churches. For them, Christian is to religion as cat is to animal. If you're baptized as a Baptist, that's good in a Methodist church, an Assembly of God church, a Lutheran church, etc. The specific subset is irrelevant so long as the doctrine matches what they view as Christian.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation.
Pity the poor Jew.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Scholar's analogy has more logical consistency than yours, Amanecer.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When someone says another person is not Christian, in a country where "Christian" means good, honest, hardworking and to say "non-Christian" means deceptive, greedy, perhaps even dangerous, that is not a light accusation.
Pity the poor Jew.
Well, no one's stopping the Jew from converting. (very much kidding)
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:To many people it's not "narrow." If there's anything that frustrates me about these conversations, it's the tendency to have what I consider to be important in my faith defined by someone who doesn't share it.
The best short summary I can give is that "one in being with the Father" is an essential element of the atonement. It touches on every single aspect of our faith.
This is important enough to be repeated.
The whole 'Christian' debate is more than whether one 'follows Jesus' or not; it's a fundamental difference between Mormon theology and Christian about the way the universe works.
In classical Christian theology, the only person capable of performing such an act as redemption from the Fall is God himself, the infinite creator. (See Colossians 1, and Galatians.) Christ in Mormon theology is not God in the same way God the Father is God. Rather, he is the Son of God, a created, separate, and subject being. This is not true in Trinitarian theology. Thus, to classical Christians, Mormon Christology seems inadequate to meet the requirement of atonement.
There's nobody in Mormon theology who's thought through the atonement with the rigor and attention to scripture that Aquinas or Anselm have. BH Roberts is probably the closest. Mormons talk about the importance of the atonement, and how it saves from sin, but we piggyback on Calvin's substitutionary theory without really thinking through the details.
So, yeah, there is a real difference here, a deeply theological one; it's not merely bigotry.
(By the way, Constantine didn't enunciate the Nicean creed; that was the council of bishops, the heirs to the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. So they themselves believed.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No one is stopping LDS either. Also "very much kidding", of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
huh. I guess I'm always surprised when people are surprised that religions tend to be judgmental in determining what qualifies as being part of their faith.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Scholar's analogy has more logical consistency than yours, Amanecer.
I'm not sure if I agree, but I'm also not sure it matters. If you're not addressing the perspective of the people that are disagreeing with you, you're not having a productive conversation.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Okay, what about this analogy:
Imagine that the college of science at a university has several different departments. There's organic chemistry, microbiology, particle physics, geology, zoology, physical chemistry, and quantum physics. They're all fairly different departments, and they're not that interchangeable. People don't tend to move from one to the other, and there isn't much overlap. But they're all under the umbrella of "science." So along comes an astronomy department, wanting to be included in the college of science. And of course it would be unfair to reject them because, say, they don't do experiments like the other departments do. Astronomy is different, but it's the same as the other departments where it really matters. Each of these departments shares certain core aspects -- the scientific method, doing research, analyzing data, publishing papers, and the departments all agree that these are the important things which define the umbrella of science. Additionally, a professor from the particle physics department thinks of herself as a member of the particle physics department more than as a member of the college of science. The individual designation is more important than the umbrella term.
From what I'm reading, this seems to be the LDS view of things -- "science" is "Christianity" in this analogy, and each of the departments are a sect of Christianity. Sure, the LDS/astronomy department goes about things in a pretty different manner, but it shares the characteristics that matter with all the other departments. Additionally, science/Christianity is an umbrella term that is seen as secondary to department/sect.
Here's how most evangelical Christians probably view things:
Now imagine that there's a microbiology conference going on. There are plenty of microbiology departments from many different universities there. Each department has its own governing structure, and its own specialty. One department has chosen to focus on building a TB research facility, while another is lucky enough to be near Yellowstone and has a bunch of labs that study the extremophiles that live in the water there. There may be a bit of rivalry sometimes between competing departments, and it gets pretty intense once in awhile, but most people consider themselves microbiologists first and members of their department second. It's all one field, with the study of single-celled organisms as the common theme, and there's a lot of overlap and plenty of movement between all the departments, even though there are some significant differences. But then a group of entomologists ask to participate in the conference. "Look," they say, "We study small forms of life, too. I mean, you study bacteria and you guys over here study ameobas. If you have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, it's not a big jump to include bugs too." But the microbiologists insist that microbiology means single-celled organisms, and refuse to accept the entomologists' argument that the number of cells really isn't important.
Microbiology/Christianity is the important identifier here, and department/sect is less important. The different departments/sects have different styles, practices and focuses (or beliefs that are not considered essential). But they all agree on what microbiology/Christianity is, and that definition is pretty important to them. The entomologists/LDS consider the whole multicellular/trinitarian thing an unimportant part of the definition of microbiology/Christianity, but the rest of the microbiologists/Christians think it's essential.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
A good analogy that clarifies things alot.
By Mormon Definition: Christian = Follower of Christ
By "Christian" Definition = Believer in specific Doctrines concerning Christ.
So my question is, what does it take to be saved. If someone accepts Christ and tries to be the best person as possible. Are they required to have a perfect understanding of the trinity to be saved?
I think alot of times the frustrations that members of our religion feel comes from that (in most cases) We are doing our best to live honest decent "Christian" lives. Yet we are still being condemned due to doctrinal differences. Not on how we are saved, or why we are saved, or even what saves us, but on the exact characteristics of that savior.
What's more important?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?" That seems like an analogous situation. I mean, if they believe the Book of Mormon is correct and they believe Joseph Smith restored the church and their primary differentiation is just in which way they believe the line of succession branched...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Not on how we are saved, or why we are saved, or even what saves us, but on the exact characteristics of that savior.
What's more important?
For trinitarian Christianity "how we are saved" and "what saves us" are absolutely dependent on the those "exact characteristics" of the savior.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:By Mormon Definition: Christian = Follower of Christ
By "Christian" Definition = Believer in specific Doctrines concerning Christ.
That's too easy, I think. Mormons hold particular doctrines concerning Christ, and indeed, the main reason Mormons proslytize is because we believe our doctrines are more correct than other people's doctrines.
Further, do you believe that followers of Christ should believe that Christ was divine?
quote:Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?
I think that's an accurate use of the term. Others disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Yet we are still being condemned due to doctrinal differences.
Condemned? To what?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Yet we are still being condemned due to doctrinal differences.
Condemned? To what?
Might I paraphrase just about every Protestant I ever met while growing up as a Mormon in North Carolina..."You're a Mormon? You're going to go to hell." Each of these people subsequently cut all ties with me and commenced mocking me publicly in any way they could possibly think of. Would you mind pointing out which commandment that is? Thou shalt mock they neighbor, perhaps?
I'm sorry. That was probably a little harsh. But having been completely ostracized by "Christians" had an interesting affect on me as a child. Someone said I wasn't a Christian. My response was typically, "If I have to be like you to be a Christian, then thank goodness I'm not."
I don't have to subscribe to your definition of who is and isn't a Christian. I know who I am. I love Jesus Christ. He has done more to guide me and protect me than any force outside of myself could ever do. Am I going to hell because I don't subscribe to your definition of what a Christian is? I don't think any person who as ever existed, save one, has any right to say that. And guess what...He never did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, I wouldn't speak for Evangelicals, but the official Catholic Doctrine (which is usually more conservative than the average American Catholic) is not that non-Christians go to hell.
So at least we are not condemning you.
And, in my opinion, those people were asses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But having been completely ostracized by "Christians" had an interesting affect on me as a child. Someone said I wasn't a Christian.
Try actually not being a Christian some time. As it is, the sad violin music is barely audible.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Well, now that is a problem that we should be addressing.
quote:And, in my opinion, those people were asses.
kmboots, I think you are at least starting to understand what we are talking about. Mormons could care less about getting called "Orthodox Christians," "Traditional Christians," "Trinitarian Christians," or etc. We would be just fine getting called "Mormon Christians" or even "Non-Trinitarian Christians." Anything, other than "non-Christians" that the use, intended or not, denies us our core belief in Jesus Christ as more than a moral leader, but in fact a Savior! In fact, I have known Protestant Christians say that Catholics WERE NOT Christians. How would that make you feel? Would you protest or just say, well your right. I have beliefs that are different from you so, by your definition, I guess I'm not a Christian.
quote:Do the Mormons here consider the various offshoots of the LDS church to still be "Mormon?
I think I for one answered that question. I think MattB did as well. There are some Mormons who think otherwise, including sadly the LDS leadership, but I think that is wrong and counter-productive. Not to mention, I believe in past discussions on that matter that other Mormons of Hatrack have also expressed they would label anyone as Mormon who expresses belief in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith as Prophet. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them theologically, organizationally, or authoratatively.
quote:. . . poor Jews
Yep. Exactly. But hey, they get included as the "Judeo-Christian" labelling now.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD, believe it or not I actually feel for your situation. On the other hand, I don't think you actually understand that Mormons are often treated like you rather than at a different level than you. You just refuse to see that because I think you equate Mormons and Christians as the same thing. Not that I am complaining about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On the other hand, I don't think you actually understand that Mormons are often treated like you rather than at a different level than you.
Mormons are only treated like pagans in towns where there are so few legitimately non-Christian people that the "real" Christians need to start counting the points of the stars on their bellies. I'm not expecting Mormons and atheists to align against the Baptists any day soon; the reverse, however, happens fairly often.
In other words, Mormons only get discriminated against when there's no one else conveniently to hand.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
On the other hand, they may align with Mormons, but they often talk out the other side of their mouths with vitriol. That is why I think Mormons are oh so slightly starting to feel used, a point of this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, of course you're being used. You're a minority. You'll be tolerated until you become the most obviously different group left, and then you'll be persecuted. That's basically the way it works.
To be honest, I'm just disappointed that the Mormons are apparently only now realizing that some right-wing Evangelicals have a nasty streak. (Note: that "some" is in there quite explicitly. I do not mean to imply that all or most or even a significant minority of Evangelicals are "nasty." However, I think a disproportionate number of politically-minded and/or media-savvy Evangelicals are very nasty, indeed, perhaps because it's exactly that sort of person who's drawn to politics and/or mediavangelism.)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, do you think you are mistaking ignorance for malice?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On the other hand, I don't think you actually understand that Mormons are often treated like you rather than at a different level than you.
Mormons are only treated like pagans in towns where there are so few legitimately non-Christian people that the "real" Christians need to start counting the points of the stars on their bellies. I'm not expecting Mormons and atheists to align against the Baptists any day soon; the reverse, however, happens fairly often.
In other words, Mormons only get discriminated against when there's no one else conveniently to hand.
That made me life like crazy. Even in areas where there are a vastly larger number of Mormons than Evangelicals, the Evangelicals tend to be so vitriolic and hateful towards us that it boggles the mind. Furthermore, are you honestly implying that those who don't believe in a supreme being are 100% benevolent in dealing with those who do? You've GOT to be kidding me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Furthermore, are you honestly implying that those who don't believe in a supreme being are 100% benevolent in dealing with those who do?
No. I'm saying that people tend to fear and distrust things and people they don't understand, and that religion is a common point of misunderstanding and disagreement. Ergo, people can be expected to fear and distrust those who do not share their religion until they get to know them better.
However, evangelical Christians and Mormons have more social policies and broad beliefs in common with each other than they have with, say, liberal atheists or Hindus. Moreover, evangelicals and Mormons both enjoy sizable geographic regions of the country in which they make up a demographic majority, giving them a cultural and political power lacking in truly minority cultures. For this reason, it can be expected that it is generally more convenient for them to ally against other groups until they run out of those groups in their immediate sphere of influence. Once that happens, it's human nature for them to start inspecting "their own" population for more subtle forms of deviance. In other words, once all the public atheists, Muslims, etc. in the immediate field of fire have been successfully silenced, only then will the various Christian sects bother to turn their full guns on each other.
If a Muslim were running for the Republican nomination, Romney's religion wouldn't come up. It is only because there is the safe expectation of Christian values that the subtle (and not-so-subtle) distinctions between sects becomes relevant.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I disagree- I think if a Muslim were running, they would still go after Romney's religion. In part, because there is no fear that anyone will confuse the evil Muslim with a good Christian. Same with persecuting the atheists. They don't need to because it is so obvious. But their kids and co-workers could easily be confused by the LDS and tricked into thinking that Mormons are not evil. Therefore, they need to have classes on how evil we are and constantly repeat it.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
To be fair, the Mormon bashing goes on in many churches even with the presence of other religions in the area. In fact, they're sometimes seen as more of a "threat" because of their similarities. I've been in some churches where there is a lot of fear of the Other, and I'm disgusted (but not surprised) that many of you have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of nastiness.
Having said that, I don't think that things will get better for you even if the common perception is that Mormons are a type of Christian. Some of the more conservative evangelical churches tend to think of more moderate or liberal Christians (and also Catholics) as inferior, and some go so far as to say that a majority are not "saved."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the classes exist only because the Mormons actively recruit, and the doctrinal differences between the sects (real and imagined) are often not "fairly" discussed during that recruitment. It's not necessary to hold a class in order to establish why a Hindu is going to Hell, but it takes a fair bit of understanding to "realize" why a Mormon is.
When I was a Baha'i, I was amused by the anti-Baha'i pamphlets and "classes," too. They basically consisted of, "Yeah, Baha'is believe in Christ. They also don't think Christ was God, and look pretty Islamic to us. 'Nuff said."
--------
Here's something I genuinely don't get. I often hear LDS complaining about Baptist portrayals of them "eating babies" or having horns. I'll take this at face value, and assume that this kind of rumor still actually exists. But I have never heard a Baptist accuse a non-Christian of "eating babies" or "having horns" or anything like that; they may go for the "X has sex with sheep" winky slander, or the "you can't trust those Y," but I don't know anybody who truly believes that even a Satanist has a third nipple or a lazy eye or a telltale birthmark. Does anyone else? Where does this sort of concrete demonization still happen, and to whom?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Perhaps the most common, and probably the most long-lasting and hurtful is the "Blood Libel" myth.
Blood Libel is the accusation by "religious group A" that "religious group B" is committing unbelievably despicable acts of ritual murder. Typically, the story contains a number of riveting details: * a victim is kidnapped by members of "religious group B." * the victim is usually an innocent person. An infant, young child or a blond blue-eyed teenage virgin girl are typical. * the victim may be abused or tortured. They are ritually killed in order to meet the requirements of the perpetrator's religion. * in an act of cannibalism, the victim's body is eaten and/or the blood is consumed. * obscene sexual orgies (sometimes involving incest) are held during or after the ritual.
There are about 12 examples of accusers versus accused. Christians are involved as accusers eight times and as accused four times.
Despite the length of the list, Mormons don't even make the list of the 12 major examples Although...
quote: For example, a public opinion poll in Utah revealed that 90% of the population believed in evil Satanic cults ritually abusing children.
Here's a fun quote:
quote: R.V. Canning of the FBI commented in a 1992 report: "In books, lectures, handout material, and conversations, I have heard all of the following referred to as satanism: Church of Satan, Ordo Templi Orientis, Temple of Set, Demonology, Witchcraft, Occult, Paganism, Santeria, Voodoo, Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Knights Templar, Stoner Gangs, Heavy Metal Music, Rock Music, KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, Scientology, Unification Church, The Way, Hare Krishna, Rajneesh, Religious Cults, New Age, Astrology, Channeling, Transcendental Meditation, Holistic Medicine,Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism." To this list, can be added Wicca, Druidism, various other Neopagan faiths, Goddess Worship, a number of 12 step self help organizations such as Alcoholic Anonymous, and even the Society of Friends (Quakers). This modern form of blood libel myth is called Satanic Ritual Abuse or Sadistic Ritual Abuse (SRA).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:To be honest, I'm just disappointed that the Mormons are apparently only now realizing that some right-wing Evangelicals have a nasty streak. (Note: that "some" is in there quite explicitly. I do not mean to imply that all or most or even a significant minority of Evangelicals are "nasty." However, I think a disproportionate number of politically-minded and/or media-savvy Evangelicals are very nasty, indeed, perhaps because it's exactly that sort of person who's drawn to politics and/or mediavangelism.)
It's nothing new. It's usually just par for the course. But with Mitt Romney's Mormonism in the national spotlight, suddenly it's become something we have to respond to in a PR/national news sort of way. All of a sudden the average LDS church member has to be able to clearly vocalize how they feel about it.
quote:Here's something I genuinely don't get. I often hear LDS complaining about Baptist portrayals of them "eating babies" or having horns. I'll take this at face value, and assume that this kind of rumor still actually exists. But I have never heard a Baptist accuse a non-Christian of "eating babies" or "having horns" or anything like that; they may go for the "X has sex with sheep" winky slander, or the "you can't trust those Y," but I don't know anybody who truly believes that even a Satanist has a third nipple or a lazy eye or a telltale birthmark. Does anyone else? Where does this sort of concrete demonization still happen, and to whom?
I ran into that to some degree as a missionary in southern Belgium and northern France. Nothing so Weekly World News-esque as Mormons having horns, but we did meet people who thought we were there to steal their daughters and lock them up in the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, etc. But those people were usually drunk.
kmboots and Dagonee, I genuinely didn't (and still don't really) understand how central the doctrine of the Trinity is to you in being Christian. I can see how it would be hard to think about Mormons as Christians in that light.
With the amount of active proselytizing that members of the LDS church do, there is going to be friction. We are not a close-out-the-rest-of-the-world kind of church. I'm not saying we're inviting the attacks that are launched against us, and the persecution we do face right now is nothing compared to that suffered by the early church. Neither do we particularly revel in being martyrs. But we're not some poor little boy huddled in the corner whimpering while the crowd throws sticks at him, either. We expend considerable energy making our beliefs known to the world, we know they're fairly peculiar to many people, and we know some persecution is bound to come of it. My real fear, personally, is that some LDS church members somewhere will decide to give as good as they get.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote: Perhaps the most common, and probably the most long-lasting and hurtful is the "Blood Libel" myth.
Blood Libel is the accusation by "religious group A" that "religious group B" is committing unbelievably despicable acts of ritual murder. Typically, the story contains a number of riveting details: * a victim is kidnapped by members of "religious group B." * the victim is usually an innocent person. An infant, young child or a blond blue-eyed teenage virgin girl are typical. * the victim may be abused or tortured. They are ritually killed in order to meet the requirements of the perpetrator's religion. * in an act of cannibalism, the victim's body is eaten and/or the blood is consumed. * obscene sexual orgies (sometimes involving incest) are held during or after the ritual.
This can easily be traced back to the fourteenth century when stories of Jews ritually murdering Christian children (in ways which mocked the crucifixion) began circulating as ways to rouse a crowd. Not exactly a shining moment in history. Not exactly stuff to be proud of, then or now, but good to remember in the hopes of not repeating it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: This can easily be traced back to the fourteenth century when stories of Jews ritually murdering Christian children (in ways which mocked the crucifixion) began circulating as ways to rouse a crowd. Not exactly a shining moment in history. Not exactly stuff to be proud of, then or now, but good to remember in the hopes of not repeating it.
Wow. My eyes jumped over "stories of", and for a second I thought you were claiming that Jews actually did those things. First time I've been shocked in a long time. Not on my Hatrack!
Luckily, it's just late, and my sleepy eyes deceived me. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My grandparents were convinced that part of temple marriage involved having intercourse witnessed by all the bishops, to prove that the girl was a virgin. I am not really sure that she ever really believed us when we told her that isn't what happened. Not quite eating babies but pretty ucky.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
EL: Actually, if you follow the link you'll find at least four examples before that with one example occuring when Christians did not even exist yet.
The Jews ritually murdering Christian children thing is just the first example they go into detail about.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
You know, I think those people on the other side of the river, you know.... THEM... those so called "Discussions about Orson Scott Card" people... I think they kidnap kittens and ritually sacrifice them to their heathen gods, then eat them and use their fur for wall decorations. I heard they do that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
What's wrong with that? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tatiana, I'm a frequent attendee of that side of the river, and I can honestly say that no one over there treats kittens that way.
Except me.
> Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<watches her kittens zealously>
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If you're baptized as a Baptist, that's good in a Methodist church, an Assembly of God church, a Lutheran church, etc. The specific subset is irrelevant so long as the doctrine matches what they view as Christian.
This is pretty late in the game, but I just wanted to throw this in, because it's late and I'm bored. The quote above isn't actually true. Many denominations reject the baptisms performed in other denominations unless they are almost exactly like their own. For example, the Southern Baptist churches reject the baptism of the members of the Church of Christ because supposedly the Church of Christ believes that you HAVE to be baptized to be saved, whereas the Southern Baptists don't. They don't actively speak out against them, but a member of the C of C can't join a Southern Baptist church without being baptized again in the new church. There may be exceptions to this, but this is the official position as far as I know, or it's the one that's enforced most often. (It's pretty silly of the Southern Baptists, IMO, for them to claim that baptism isn't essential to salvation, but that it IS essential to being a baptist, and that not any baptism will do.) So, very small differences in doctrine can keep you out of the club, as it were. And don't even get me started on sprinkling versus immersion.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Quote: Originally posted by Philosofickle: Not on how we are saved, or why we are saved, or even what saves us, but on the exact characteristics of that savior.
What's more important? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For trinitarian Christianity "how we are saved" and "what saves us" are absolutely dependent on the those "exact characteristics" of the savior. Unquote (from dkw) That applies exactly to Mormons as well. Joseph Smith emphasised that, using as a text John 17 (can't remember the specific verse, sorry), which says, "This is life eternal, to know thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
The Mormons have horns thing goes back to the 19th century. From what I understand, the same types of stories that have been referred to in relation to temple marriage, for example, also circulated in very early Christian times about the virgin birth etc, so there's a very long history of such things in a Christian context, but that sort of thing is found in all contexts.
I had a Baptist friend years ago who told me she grew up being told Mromons are weird. She really struggled with the belief i was going to hell. It was difficult for her because I was the face on the Mormon stereotype she'd been taught about. She never accepted that i was Cristian, I came to realise because I didn't fit her definition. Felt to me like the word Christian had been 'hijacked' and no one else was allowed to use it. To her Catholics weren't Christian, Jehovah's Witnesses definitely weren't and she was quite vocal about it. I found it very judgmental, and it bothered me that she and others like her are so quick to judge what's in a person's heart.
That's not what I have been taught repeatedly in my church that I should do. Mormons' view that God expects us to do all we can with the knowledge we've been given and not condemn others for having less knowledge makes us very tolerant and accepting of the beliefs and efforts of others while still placing responsibility on us for enlarging that knowledge.
In my experience many "fundamentalist Christians" take the exact opposite view. They try to destroy, working negatively. Thus the demonisation of Mormons stories.
One of my favourite quotes from Joseph Smith was along the lines of this: "Mormons are all going to hell? I can't think of a better group of people to go there with. Give us a month and we'll turn it into paradise."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In my experience many "fundamentalist Christians" take the exact opposite view.
In all fairness, it has been my experience that many Mormons (along with most other groups, including atheists and football fans) also take the exact opposite view, whether they're conscious of it or not. It's very easy to fall into smugness precisely when you think your group is, as a class, less likely to be guilty of it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
In a large group, you're going to get a variety of attitiudes. But again in my experience, attitudes similar to what I've said about many fundamentalist Christians are not common amongst Mormons. When they exist they tend to be regarded as unacceptable and spoken against. In fact, a few years ago I was assigned by the stake president, as part of my church calling, to give a talk specifically to correct that attitude. A member had expressed some attitudes in a talk she gave in church critical of other churches, and the stake president was concerned to correct that.
I won't deny that some few members have those attitudes, but they don't get much traction in discussions with other Mormons. As opposed to my Baptist friend, whose friends, after she told them I had invited her to my son's baptism, told her she shouldn't even be friends with a Mormon.
As far as smugness is concerned, individually sure, but again not anywhere near the norm, in my experience.
And, institutionally, the LDS church never criticises other religions. We don't run classes about what's wrong with other religions, our bookstores don't carry material of any kind attacking others. We don't try to block the construction of other churches, or picket them. We don't try to kick other denominations off of community church councils, we don't let our buildings be used for meetings denouncing any whose doctrines contradict ours. All of this, and more, fundamentalist Christian churches do to Mormons and others.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Perhaps opening a whole other can of worms:
I was raised Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic extended family. Devote Catholic. As in church multiple times a week, confession at least every week, fish on Fridays, saying the rosary everyday, etc. I also went to Catholic schools which meant my friends, family, and most other people I knew and associated with were Catholic's. As such it wasn't until I was a teenager and started to associate more with "others" that I was introduced to certain ideas. I had taken classes on world religion, etc. but I was 15 or 16 years old that I came to understand/realize that what I thought Christianity meant it didn't mean. At this age I discovered that other Christian groups didn't believe good works were necessary. It really shocked and appalled me. Accepting Jesus meant to me (at 15) knowing he was God and our Saviour and to try to be like him as much as possible (helping the poor, being understanding of other people, not being selfish etc). The idea that there were other groups that called themselves Christian and didn't feel like they had to help those in need, those who suffered, etc. was completely alien and did not compute. It was only after this I made sense of why not everybody liked Christians. Heh.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Works can be a tricky subject for Protestants. They're not required for salvation, but we're supposed to want to do them. Heck, I thought trying to be like Christ was the definition of Christian until I read this thread.
You know how Catholics have a couple groups, some who show up every Sunday and some who just show up for Christmas and Easter? Protestants get a trickier version of that. Some folks try to follow God's teaching all the time while Sunday Christians just like to show up and look good. The worst part is that some folks really think they're exemplary people while being mean and petty because they're just pointing out where others could do better. I can never decide if they're oblivious and lacking any semblance of tact or if they're tearing others down to make themselves feel more holy and found a really great cover for it.
So please don't paint us all with the Sunday Christian brush just because we don't require works. And remember that even if we're bad Christians, we may be perfectly aware of it and trying to work on it. (I have issues with taking my problems out on other people when I'm in a bad mood. That's a toughie to break.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A member had expressed some attitudes in a talk she gave in church critical of other churches
The LDS Church claims to be restoring Christ's Church on Earth, which had allegedly been absent for 1500+ years because of the apostasy of all the other Churches.
Criticism of other churches is built into the very foundational story of your church.
quote:The idea that there were other groups that called themselves Christian and didn't feel like they had to help those in need, those who suffered, etc. was completely alien and did not compute.
This is not a very fair summary of Protestant teaching on faith, not works. I don't know of any such denomination that does not teach - and act - to help those in need, etc.
Moreover, I don't see a huge difference in the average participation in such activities by the general membership of Protestant and Catholic churches.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
AvidReader- I long ago learned that people of all kinds are part of every religion. I hope I don't bring in a preconception of who a person is by what faith they profess.
Dagonee- I was saying how I saw things at age 15/16
To be clear I do -not- have any illusion that Catholic's are better people, etc.
(Point of note I married this summer a baptized Protestant who goes between calling himself agnostic and Buddhist)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Criticism of other churches is built into the very foundational story of your church.
What do you mean by criticism?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Some folks try to follow God's teaching all the time while Sunday Christians just like to show up and look good.
This is true of every religion, I think.
Except for those who go to church on Saturday.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What do you mean by criticism?
That the other churches have all become (or were from their inception) apostate.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Dagonee,
While I agree that this is a critism the similar arguments could be made for any religion that for one reason or another believes itself to be the one and only church/path to heaven. It is just in the nature of the claim of exclusivity.
I think the argument was that the LDS Church does not go out of its way to convince their members that other churches are evil but focuses on teaching why the LDS beliefs are correct.
As for me, I could really care less what other churches are teaching about us. I don't think it is an effective use of their time and sometime alienates their own members but that is their perogative.
Sergeant
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While I agree that this is a critism the similar arguments could be made for any religion that for one reason or another believes itself to be the one and only church/path to heaven. It is just in the nature of the claim of exclusivity.
I think that's largely the point I was making.
quote:I think the argument was that the LDS Church does not go out of its way to convince their members that other churches are evil but focuses on teaching why the LDS beliefs are correct.
Edit: never mind - I misread what you posted.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ah. Let's look at Cashew's whole post so that we can get context on how he used the word "criticism" and then contrast with your use of the word.
This to make the point that your criticism-- while certainly true-- does not make Cashew's statement untrue. Your statement seems to imply a level of hypocrisy in Mormon doctrine. While that hypocrisy certainly may exist, it does not logically exist in the argument as framed by Cashew.
quote:in my experience, attitudes similar to what I've said about many fundamentalist Christians are not common amongst Mormons.
Here is the attitude he's talking about:
quote:I had a Baptist friend years ago who told me she grew up being told Mromons are weird. She really struggled with the belief i was going to hell. It was difficult for her because I was the face on the Mormon stereotype she'd been taught about. She never accepted that i was Cristian, I came to realise because I didn't fit her definition. Felt to me like the word Christian had been 'hijacked' and no one else was allowed to use it. To her Catholics weren't Christian, Jehovah's Witnesses definitely weren't and she was quite vocal about it. I found it very judgmental, and it bothered me that she and others like her are so quick to judge what's in a person's heart.
It's clear from this statement that he's talking about a perception that Christian fundamentalists judge people by their religious affiliation.
He then iterates the Mormon stance on such criticism:
quote: That's not what I have been taught repeatedly in my church that I should do. Mormons' view that God expects us to do all we can with the knowledge we've been given and not condemn others for having less knowledge makes us very tolerant and accepting of the beliefs and efforts of others while still placing responsibility on us for enlarging that knowledge.
Cashew then reiterates his previous point:
quote: In my experience many "fundamentalist Christians" take the exact opposite view. They try to destroy, working negatively. Thus the demonisation of Mormons stories.
Further, he goes on to say what happens when Mormons fall into the trap of criticizing other churches:
quote: When they exist they tend to be regarded as unacceptable and spoken against. In fact, a few years ago I was assigned by the stake president, as part of my church calling, to give a talk specifically to correct that attitude. A member had expressed some attitudes in a talk she gave in church critical of other churches, and the stake president was concerned to correct that.
We've discussed this before on this site. It's a matter of degree. No Mormon is justified in saying that Pope Linus was the devil's tool in founding the apostasy, even though we do maintain that an Apostasy occurred, and was in force until Joseph Smith's first vision.
Saying that Mormons-- as a church-- are guilty of the type of criticism that Cashew found in his friend is simply wrong. While I don't know if you were trying to make this point or not, Dagonee, I want other readers to realize that there is a difference between saying, "Mormons are going to hell because they eat babies," and "The Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is wrong."
It is the first attitude that was being criticized by Cashew; it is the second attitude that you seem to be criticizing. They are not related.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your statement seems to imply a level of hypocrisy in Mormon doctrine.
I'm sorry it seemed that way. It was not my intent. I was discussing over-generalization, not insincerely held beliefs.
quote:It is the first attitude that was being criticized by Cashew; it is the second attitude that you seem to be criticizing.
To me, it seemed as if Cashew was pointing to evidence that the LDS Church does not engage in one particular type of criticism to support the proposition that it does not engage in criticism of other faiths. In relating the story of his talk and the talk that motivated it, it was not clear to me that it was "Mormons are evil because they eat babies" type of criticism.
quote:No Mormon is justified in saying that Pope Linus was the devil's tool in founding the apostasy, even though we do maintain that an Apostasy occurred, and was in force until Joseph Smith's first vision.
There seems to be a HUGE disconnect concerning the word "apostasy" between Mormons and others. Apostasy as I've always used the term and heard it used can only be applied to willful, knowing abandonment of Christ.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
When we talk about an individual apostatizing, then you are correct.
However, when Mormons talk about the Apostasy, it has elements of both of willful abandonment of true doctrine, and a greater weight of just-not-knowing what's right, and continuing uncorrected because what's right isn't available.
My Sunday School manual points up several reformers as tools of God in making the Restoration possible; we do not condemn those who lived during the Apostasy; our doctrine doesn't even condemn those who promulgated it unknowingly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
This is a sticky topic, since the “classes” that Cashew referenced are open to the public and not all LDS teachings are. I have been told that until a recent change in the temple play/movie it depicted protestant clergy as in the service of satan. If that is true, I consider it just as bad as the “what’s wrong with Mormons” classes. Possibly worse, since it would be a part of the most central teaching by church authority, whereas the Baptist anti-mormon lectures are done by individuals, and are not a part of centralized doctrine.
And I know this is not something that can be discussed. I just don’t think it’s fair to leave it unmentioned when accusations are being made in the other direction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
dkw:
It's not something I've ever heard of. I know the actual ceremony was changed within my lifetime; I don't know how the protestant clergy would have been depicted in the ceremony.
"Recent" does not mean within the last 13 years, though. (Which is when I started attending the temple, so is the time period I can vouch for)
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I think Dagonee's right, to some extent. There's been in the past twenty or thirty years an attempt to replace a discourse in which other churches are deficient with one in which Mormonism 'adds to their light.' This is the sort of language you usually hear in testimony meeting - about how happy coming to the truth has made us, and how important it is that we share that with others. It's well intentioned and sincere, but is easily read as condescention by those outside the group - which is, not coincidentally, I think, how Mormons tend to percieve Jehovah's Witnesses or evangelicals who mount missions to Mormons who have not yet been saved. This is a problem inherent in the very nature of proslytizing religion.
Further, notions of apostasy are deeply, deeply ingrained in Mormon identity and history - in the First Vision, Joseph Smith is told that other churches "were all wrong," and many drew near to God with their lips, though their hearts were far from him. This is canon. It's been increasingly downplayed in official discourse recently; I think Mormon leadership is increasingly interested in positive, rather than negative, relationships with other churches, but it's still there.
For the vast majority of Mormon history, Mormon leaders and writers of every stripe were very unapologetic about it. There's a strong, strong strain of thought that describes Catholicism as the 'great and abominable church' of 1 Nephi, for example - I can think of three or four sources for that off the top of my head, from BH Roberts to Bruce R. McConkie.
This is not _official_ doctrine, of course - and indeed, the only official declaration on the subject, a First Presidency declaration in 1977, is very conciliatory, but it's definitely there in Mormon culture, and you still get it. In my priests quorum growing up, a friend of mine once came in with a photograph of John Paul II captioned: "I never said it would be worth it: I only said it would be easy." I think he'd certainly be horrified if I brought that up to him now - we were both sixteen at the time. But some things are hard for a culture to shake.
Edit: The Protestant minister controlled by Satan was removed from the temple ceremony in 1990.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jaiden: (Point of note I married this summer a baptized Protestant who goes between calling himself agnostic and Buddhist)
Out of curiosity, is it that he publically calls himself agnostic or atheist, but is really Protestant in private? Or is the baptized Protestant part more of a "historical" note?
Also, if it helps his wavering, he can easily be both agnostic AND Buddhist Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's well intentioned and sincere, but is easily read as condescention by those outside the group
To clarify, since I did not say this above, I do not see Mormon teachings regarding apostasy as condescending in any way that is qualitatively different from, say, the Catholic Church's teachings regarding other churches and communities of faith. That is, if the Mormon teaching is condescending then so is the Catholic teaching, and for the same reason. I don't think either teaching actually is condescending, but I can see why others would think so.
(The obvious difference is which group I think is right in this regard, but that's not the issue here.)
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Oh, of course, Dag. I wasn't talking about you in particular there. And I fully agree with your second sentence.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I would like to argue something that was being discussed at the top of this page, that ACEs (Attacking Christian Evangelicals--a small by loud group) will go after LDS only after more obviously different foes have been purged from the vicinity.
That just isn't so.
Humans have a tendancy to attack with more vengeance and less mercy those closest to us.
I am not saying that Souther Baptists and Northern Baptists will commit mutual Genocide. Neither is in a position of power over the other, so such attacks are not made. LDS is enough like what ACEs consider "True Christianity" and worse, claim to be "True Christianity" that for a variety of reasons, they are attacked far more vigorously than a Shi'ite Mosque.
1) LDS threatens ACE's by not only poaching on ACE's recruiting ground, but by attempting to convert ACE's friends, families, and congregational "brothers and sisters".
2) Unlike the Jewish looking Jews, the Indian/Asian looking Buddhists, and the Arab Islamic competitors, you can't tell a Mormon from a "regular Christian" just by looking at them (The Catholics are almost as bad. The Atheists all wear glasses, tweed jackets, and live in New York or Baltimore.)
3) You turned down "Real Christianity" as ACEs know it for some secret stuff, and you won't tell the ACEs what the secrets are.
No, historically speaking, the meanness and viscousness of an attack on Apostates is much much worse than that shown to people who have never been a member of your beliefs. Whether its Shi'ite/Sunni wars, or the petty politics directed at a "Born Again" biologist by the rest of his lab, Apostates get the brunt first and foremost.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Humans have a tendancy to attack with more vengeance and less mercy those closest to us.
I disagree -- even though I know some people consider this a truism. But history and human nature both seem to disprove this one.
We have a tendency to attack with more vengeance and less mercy those nearest to us; we won't go a great deal out of our way to exterminate somebody. But we generally only get around to exterminating those closest to us when we've eliminated the other weirdos.
The War of the Roses didn't happen until the threat of Islam had already faded; Baptists don't preferentially slander Mormons in areas where Jews are a powerful voting bloc. And since you mentioned Sunni/Shia disputes, it's worth noting that Christians, Jews, and Baha'is tend to get it even worse in those countries (as do atheists) -- this despite specific doctrinal commandments in Islam to leave those groups largely alone and go after the apostates.
That said, I agree that "ACEs" in this country will generally regard Mormons as a more insidious enemy; on the other hand, they will gladly and happily exploit those Mormons for their votes (and vice versa) on social issues, and will with great joy claim to share the same God until everyone who does not make that claim is silenced.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Likewise, prominent people outside the Christian church are deciding what Christians do and don't believe in.
But you seem to have missed the point. Mormon's don't think they are outside the Christian church. In fact, its not even clear what you mean by "the Christian Church". There are hundreds perhaps thousands of demoninations that consider themselves to be Christian churches. These churches have no common leadership and no commonly accepted body of doctrines. We could start classifying these churches based on common doctrines and then declare that only churches that teach X and Y are Christian, but since there is no commoly recognized leadership body -- how would we decide who has the right to decide what set of teachings are essential to be Christian?
That is the bottom line. Mormons don't recognize the authority of evangelicals for defining who is and is not Christian. In the end, we believe that only Jesus himself has the right to make such judgements. If the Baptist assembly wants to claim that we aren't baptists, fine. If the Methodists want to claim we aren't methodists, fine they have that right. If Catholics want to claim we aren't Catholic, I see no problem. If Coptic Church want to claim we aren't Copts, they have the right. But since all those churches and hundreds of others including Mormons claim the name Chrisitan, how can any of them claim the authority to say which church, other than their own, is or is not Christian?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But since all those churches and hundreds of others including Mormons claim the name Chrisitan, how can any of them claim the authority to say which church, other than their own, is or is not Christian?
I understand the point you are making but really they're equally at liberty to define what is or is not Christianity and anyone else is equally at liberty to accept or reject this definition.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Mormons don't recognize the authority of evangelicals for defining who is and is not Christian.
Perhaps this is the source of the confusion - for many of these evangelicals, the church is as the Reformers put it, 'invisible' - made up of the saved across denominational lines. Thus, a 'Christian' is someone who has undergone the evangelical conversion experience, accepted Christ, and thusly gained salvation.
Mormons deny that salvation works this way, and theologically speaking, believe in a different Christ. Thus, not Christian. A lot of them deny the appellation to Catholicism as well, for similar reasons.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Mucus: Sorry for only responding now- I've been very busy. My husband was baptized as a child and is nonpracticing. He does realize he can be both Buddhist and agnostic Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Mormons don't recognize the authority of evangelicals for defining who is and is not Christian. In the end, we believe that only Jesus himself has the right to make such judgements.
Here, here! I'm non-denominational, so when my Dad explained what he was going through to join the Presbyterian Church I was floored. It sounded more like applying for a loan at the bank than being cool with God. I still don't understand why he'd bother, but he seems to like them.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
When sematics come to blows, the only appeal is to Websters (for us Americans that is):
Christian: (noun) one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
As one whom the media would classify as an Evangelical, though not partisan toward a certain denomination of Christianity (I attend a Christian-Missionary Alliance church), I am disgusted when I hear about inter-Christian quarreling. The Bible specifically warns against separate churches bickering about their differences and condemning each other. The Apostle Paul details this problem perfectly and heartily advises against such division.
So really: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons... can't we all just get along? We all believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Bible says that's what it takes. The path to heaven may be potentially treacherous and dangerous, but it is wide and allows for everyone to find it. It doesn't matter whether you take the path on stilts or in a wheelchair or in sandals or on a bus... just so long you follow the path.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:The path to heaven may be potentially treacherous and dangerous, but it is wide and allows for everyone to find it.
Oops on that one. Matthew 7:13-14. "(13) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." A wheelchair or crutch might work. But, I'm not convinced that a 30 year-old school bus will.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This was a favorite quote when I was young. I could've sworn it was Dante. *shrug*
quote:Facilis descensus Averni “It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task”
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Although... ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)