I am really disturbed by this.
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
Why does it disturb you?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
To be fair, Elon Musk did not say that we are living in a simulation. He gave an argument with a probabilistic conclusion, and refused, admirably, to say anything beyond that.
Paraphrase of his response to the questioner's repeated attempts to elicit a yes or no: I've given you the odds, what more do you want from me?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
your mom's a simulation
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
And she has a green crystal floating over her head.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BASILISK BASILISK BASILISK
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I mean, us living in a simulation is what Christianity has argued from the beginning right?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
To be fair I find the simulation arguments to be quite persuasive.
On the other hand, it all amounts to the same thing. Either we're a simulation in a theist's god's mind, or we're a simulation in a computer of a sufficiently advanced technology in a completely natural universe.
Being a low level sentient life form, I find the idea of higher beings creating mainframes to host forms such as us to be cool. If that were the case, our moral imperative would be to research the technology so that we could continue the chain of turtles.
Posted by LudWig (Member # 13490) on :
What if this is all some RPG, and we're all some NPC characters except for Trump and Putin? Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
There's limited character progression with both Trump and Putin.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I mean, us living in a simulation is what Christianity has argued from the beginning right?
What? No.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, there has been the idea that reality is in the mind of God, and that God creates by imagining things. But it's more of a notion than an argument.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I mean, us living in a simulation is what Christianity has argued from the beginning right?
What? No.
Sure it is. We're God's creation. And he puts us here.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But what is Earth simulating, exactly?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
A reality where we have no easy proof of God's existence. We are therefore free to act as agents unto ourselves.
We then run the simulation to find out what kind of people we truly are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that is what simulation means. We are not pretending; we actually do live in a reality where we have no easy proof of God's existence.
What version of Christianity argues that we don't?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that is what simulation means. We are not pretending; we actually do live in a reality where we have no easy proof of God's existence.
But that is in contrast with a previous reality where we did have easy proof of God's existence.
To use Merriam Webster,
"examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device"
We are in an experiment where our ignorance of God's existence is simulated. It's been stripped away.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I...am not quite buying that. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that we do have proof of God's existence through general revelation.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
ETA: I mean, I understand the comparison with "easy" understanding, but I wouldn't say knowledge of God was totally "stripped away." But maybe there's something in Scripture that I missed.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: To use Merriam Webster,
"examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device"
We are in an experiment where our ignorance of God's existence is simulated. It's been stripped away.
BB, but I take it that Musk is using the 3a version of the definition (the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another), not the 3b version. So unless you think the two definitions are equivalent, you and he mean different things by saying that we live in a simulation (though you still may be correct, theologically)
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I...am not quite buying that. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that we do have proof of God's existence through general revelation.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
ETA: I mean, I understand the comparison with "easy" understanding, but I wouldn't say knowledge of God was totally "stripped away." But maybe there's something in Scripture that I missed.
The proof our knowledge of God is stripped away (Assuming it was there in the first place) is that you can't remember anything about God. In fact all knowledge of any existence prior to birth is gone.
If having a person existing in a prepared scenario, with special conditions in place isn't a simulation, not much is I think.
I get that this Earth is absolutely real according to Christian theology. That it's as real as heaven is. So in that sense I can see how what Musk is talking about isn't exactly what I'm saying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Real" is, by definition, not "simulated".
And Christianity, in general, does not posit a prior existence. Plato did and the early Church dabbled with the notion but it was declared heresy in the 6th century.
edit to add: If you want claim pre-existence for Mormonism or Islam, you can but not for Christianity in general.
[ June 13, 2017, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
You can't?
Maybe if you decide the Second Council of Constantinople = Christianity. Which it isn't.
Christ's existence before mortality is affirmed in scripture. "Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world."
So the door of that possibility is already open. We have in Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
So Jeremiah's ordination as a prophet predates his own birth. Again suggesting preexistence.
We see Lucifer interacting with Adam and Eve without his ever having been born in the first place. Or in Job,
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
God is affirming that his children rejoiced at his creation of the Earth. Again suggesting preexistence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. You can't.
Maybe if you decide that Mormonism is all of Christianity. Which is isn't.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think "experiment with independent variables" is a better fit than "simulation" for the way LDS view mortal existence.
"Let's see what happens if we turn 'memory of pre-mortal existence down to 0'."
BB, I think you can claim that the LDS belief is the one you feel is correct, but quoting scripture to convince others that their church's understanding of that same scripture is incorrect is probably a non-starter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Origen tried that and failed.
edit to add: Honestly, I don't care so much about the particular doctrine as I do about people making claims about Christianity in general that they should not be making.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No. You can't.
Maybe if you decide that Mormonism is all of Christianity. Which is isn't.
What? I never even suggested Mormonism = All of Christianity, I'm even using what Christians do universally accept as scripture to give evidence.
But you shoot the scriptures down with some council that has no jurisdiction over anyone accept those that choose to and use that as proof I'm wrong about preexistence.
I'm happy to hear how you interpret those passages.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No. You can't.
Maybe if you decide that Mormonism is all of Christianity. Which is isn't.
What? I never even suggested Mormonism = All of Christianity, I'm even using what Christians do universally accept as scripture to give evidence.
I understand that Mormons may interpret those scriptures to indicate preexistence, but most Christians *don't*. As some of those scriptures are brought up specifically in predestination debates, they're ones I'm pretty familiar with. But, in response:
quote:Christ's existence before mortality is affirmed in scripture. "Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world."
That only makes sense as evidence in the context of Mormon theology, where Christ is distinct from God. Christians who hold to the Nicene Creed believe he is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." Or in other words, Jesus existed before creation because he is NOT a created being, he is the creator. (The beginning of the Gospel of John makes this more explicit) Strip away the Mormon belief that Jesus is distinct from God, and this no longer makes sense as evidence of preexistence.
quote:"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Christians generally interpret this to indicate predestination (or at least, foreknowledge), not preexistence. I.e, God had understood the need for Jeremiah, and had a plan and mission for him when he created him. (As an answer to Jeremiah's doubt of "but I'm just a kid, why would you pick me at random?" God tells him it's NOT random, that he was created for a specific purpose)
quote:We see Lucifer interacting with Adam and Eve without his ever having been born in the first place.
Again, Mormon theology. At no point does the Bible ever mention Lucifer talking to Adam or Eve. That was the serpent. (Who may not have been born, but probably hatched!)
Who or what "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:12 is isn't specified in the Bible, and Mormon theology is drastically different from most of Christianity in that regard, too.
quote:"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
That's a rhetorical question. The implication being "you weren't there, so shut up and listen."
quote:"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
"Sons of God" is here interpreted to mean "angels" not "preexisting humans" by most Christians.
---
None of which is to say your/the LDS interpretation is wrong and the mainstream interpretation is right. But none of the scriptures you quoted are actually evidence of preexistence to someone who doesn't already believe the specific extra-Biblical things you/Mormons do. Especially to someone who believes contradicting extra-Biblical things and comes from a tradition that interprets those verses differently. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No. You can't.
Maybe if you decide that Mormonism is all of Christianity. Which is isn't.
What? I never even suggested Mormonism = All of Christianity, I'm even using what Christians do universally accept as scripture to give evidence.
But you shoot the scriptures down with some council that has no jurisdiction over anyone accept those that choose to and use that as proof I'm wrong about preexistence.
I'm happy to hear how you interpret those passages.
The council in question was accepted by the Church. At the time, that was, for all practical purposes, all of Christianity. That, much later, some relatively small sects of Christianity have decided otherwise does not mean that they speak for "Christianity" in general.
[ June 14, 2017, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: Thanks for your responses.
quote:That only makes sense as evidence in the context of Mormon theology, where Christ is distinct from God. Christians who hold to the Nicene Creed believe he is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." Or in other words, Jesus existed before creation because he is NOT a created being, he is the creator. (The beginning of the Gospel of John makes this more explicit) Strip away the Mormon belief that Jesus is distinct from God, and this no longer makes sense as evidence of preexistence.
It's true that at times I have trouble stripping away and converting my understanding of the Bible when discussing with other Christians. It usually comes up in discussions of the resurrection, and I'll admit it blindsided me on the preexistence piece.
I don't really understand how it is that Protestantism represents a total separation from the Catholic church including many Catholic doctrines, but then things like the Nicene creed and the Second Council of Constantinople which are clearly Catholic church meetings somehow are still rigorously adhered to, while previous Christians who saw these scriptures differently are all heretics and not Christians.
You are right the pre-existance of Jesus does not make sense (Though I struggle to understand what is meant by begotten not made) if you believe in the mainline doctrine of the trinity.
quote:Christians generally interpret this to indicate predestination (or at least, foreknowledge), not preexistence. I.e, God had understood the need for Jeremiah, and had a plan and mission for him when he created him. (As an answer to Jeremiah's doubt of "but I'm just a kid, why would you pick me at random?" God tells him it's NOT random, that he was created for a specific purpose)
OK. But if God was trying to say Jeremiah was around before he was born and was ordained a prophet, what other language could he use to make that clear?
quote:Again, Mormon theology. At no point does the Bible ever mention Lucifer talking to Adam or Eve. That was the serpent. (Who may not have been born, but probably hatched!)
Who or what "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:12 is isn't specified in the Bible, and Mormon theology is drastically different from most of Christianity in that regard, too.
Blindsided again.
So in Revelations where it says,
"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"
Satan is called that old serpent, but he's not the serpent in the Garden of Eden?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I don't really understand how it is that Protestantism represents a total separation from the Catholic church including many Catholic doctrines, but then things like the Nicene creed and the Second Council of Constantinople which are clearly Catholic church meetings somehow are still rigorously adhered to, while previous Christians who saw these scriptures differently are all heretics and not Christians.
We've talked about it before, but it's because Protestants don't consider themselves separated. I mean, I grew up in various Protestant churches and they all claim to be part of the Holy Catholic Church - that's one of the central tenants of Christianity and holding to the Nicene creed. Protestants reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (the institution) but consider still consider themselves to be part of the Church (the body).
Also, the Protestest Reformation, while not coherent in its goals (i.e, Henry VIII had much different reasons than Martin Luther), was about rejecting specific Church teachings/practices, not outright rejecting everything that happened since 325 AD. Some of the practices/abuses that inspired the protestant reformation (like the quantification/selling of indulgences) have since been curtailed or ended by the Roman Catholic Church since then.
Nobody has said that pre-Nicean Christians weren't Christians, just that their disparate beliefs (the number and diversity of which was what inspired standardization with the Councils of Nicea and Hippo in the first place) aren't those of "Christians in general." Kate has explained this a few times.
quote:You are right the pre-existance of Jesus does not make sense (Though I struggle to understand what is meant by begotten not made) if you believe in the mainline doctrine of the trinity.
It's a fairly easy distinction. "Begotten" means born, "made" means created, artificed. As in, they believe Jesus is the Son of God, of the same substance and being of God, coequal, rather than Jesus being a creation of God, he is God. Whereas humans are created - crafted, designed. In the image of God, but not of the same substance, and not God.
QUOTE]OK. But if God was trying to say Jeremiah was around before he was born and was ordained a prophet, what other language could he use to make that clear?[/QUOTE]
Say "before I placed you in the belly" before "before I made you in the belly" for starters I guess, or maybe "Yo, Jeremiah, you existed before I wiped your memory and put in you in a human body", but I'm not here to debate interpretation with you, just telling you how that verse is in fact interpreted by most Christians.
quote:Blindsided again.
So in Revelations where it says,
"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"
Satan is called that old serpent, but he's not the serpent in the Garden of Eden?
You said Lucifer before, who is never said to be Satan in the Bible. But in response to that, the nature of Satan/the Devil is one of the least agreed upon/established things amoung Christians (to the point where most Protestants at least draw their interpretation of the nature of Satan from Milton), but I believe most Christians would agree that the Serpent was either a manifestation of Satan or an animal possessed by him. That being said, they also believe Satan (and the rest of the angels) are created beings who were created before humans (see "Sons of God" above), and are spiritual rather than physical beings, but are nonetheless created. They don't "pre-exist" since they aren't mortals (though they can take the shape of or posess mortal beings), just exist. But again, very little of that is from the Bible, and a lot of it wasn't hammered down even in the middle ages, which is why you see such disparate beliefs on the subject. (With a lot of protestant churches rejecting Satan as an literal being as opposed to a literary device or allegory - which makes sense, since the story of the Garden of Eden seems pretty highly allegorical in the first place)
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:We've talked about it before, but it's because Protestants don't consider themselves separated. I mean, I grew up in various Protestant churches and they all claim to be part of the Holy Catholic Church - that's one of the central tenants of Christianity and holding to the Nicene creed. Protestants reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (the institution) but consider still consider themselves to be part of the Church (the body).
We, as in you and me? Or we as in this forum? I've literally never heard a Protestant say they belong to the Holy Catholic Church. It's like hearing that all this time, Christians believe that Baal is actually a real God and demands sacrifice. If you are saying Holy Catholic Church = Body of Christ, well that's more or less what we believe too.
quote:Also, the Protestest Reformation, while not coherent in its goals (i.e, Henry VIII had much different reasons than Martin Luther), was about rejecting specific Church teachings/practices, not outright rejecting everything that happened since 325 AD. Some of the practices/abuses that inspired the protestant reformation (like the quantification/selling of indulgences) have since been curtailed or ended by the Roman Catholic Church since then.
I didn't mean to suggest they threw everything out, but isn't their a gamut? Anglicans are almost exactly Catholic, Universalists are pretty far removed?
quote:Nobody has said that pre-Nicean Christians weren't Christians, just that their disparate beliefs (the number and diversity of which was what inspired standardization with the Councils of Nicea and Hippo in the first place) aren't those of "Christians in general." Kate has explained this a few times.
Those beliefs didn't take root because they were declared a heresy and you could be killed for saying them. My point is more that Mormons didn't originate them, and they aren't alien concepts to Christianity. Some ancient Christians believed them.
I can see how my terming it "Christianity taught from the beginning" was flawed because I honestly had no clue other Christians don't believe in a pre-existance.
quote:You said Lucifer before, who is never said to be Satan in the Bible.
Blindsided by this. I assumed most Christians use Lucifer and Satan interchangeably.
quote:But in response to that, the nature of Satan/the Devil is one of the least agreed upon/established things amoung Christians (to the point where most Protestants at least draw their interpretation of the nature of Satan from Milton), but I believe most Christians would agree that the Serpent was either a manifestation of Satan or an animal possessed by him. That being said, they also believe Satan (and the rest of the angels) are created beings who were created before humans (see "Sons of God" above), and are spiritual rather than physical beings, but are nonetheless created. They don't "pre-exist" since they aren't mortals (though they can take the shape of or posess mortal beings), just exist. But again, very little of that is from the Bible, and a lot of it wasn't hammered down even in the middle ages, which is why you see such disparate beliefs on the subject. (With a lot of protestant churches rejecting Satan as an literal being as opposed to a literary device or allegory - which makes sense, since the story of the Garden of Eden seems pretty highly allegorical in the first place)
Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: We, as in you and me? Or we as in this forum? I've literally never heard a Protestant say they belong to the Holy Catholic Church.
Like, its something protestants literally say every time they read the Nicene Creed in church. The universality of The Church is a pretty central tenant for most Christians.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most Protestant sects still use the Nicene Creed which contains, "And I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."
Small "c" catholic. It basically means universal. From the Greek kata (with respect to) holos (the whole).
quote:I can see how my terming it "Christianity taught from the beginning" was flawed because I honestly had no clue other Christians don't believe in a pre-existance.
Thank you, BB. That was all you needed to say. And now you know. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: We, as in you and me? Or we as in this forum? I've literally never heard a Protestant say they belong to the Holy Catholic Church.
Thanks for the link. My memory on these terms got muddled.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Kate:
quote:Most Protestant sects still use the Nicene Creed which contains, "And I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
.
This I knew. I just didn't think they actually said the one holy catholic church, since I'd never heard them call their churches Catholic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you knew it but didn't think it?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Sorry, on my phone. I knew that they recited the Nicene creed. Did not think of they included the bit I quoted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While individuals may make small, unauthorized* tweaks (I, for example leave out the "men" in "For us men and for our salvation" and change the pronoun for the Holy Spirit to "she") you shouldn't think that whole denominations could make wholesale changes and still use the creed.
*My priest and my catechist approved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also, thank you, Dogbreath.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: While individuals may make small, unauthorized* tweaks (I, for example leave out the "men" in "For us men and for our salvation" and change the pronoun for the Holy Spirit to "she") you shouldn't think that whole denominations could make wholesale changes and still use the creed.
*My priest and my catechist approved.
I appreciate the explanation. But I also hope that perhaps you can see that repeatedly our conversations about Christian doctrine revolve around this particular creed. And I find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm sorry, I'm frustrated. Both because of this topic (Christianity) being so difficult to discuss. Because of your statement to me on Facebook just now (Which I'm sure amuses you because it seems like evidence of your point), because I feel like often in conversations like these it feels like I said nothing of interest or utility, and because of some other things unrelated but which clearly together make me less than enjoyable to talk to right now.
I'll try to get myself together and come back to the thread later.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get that you think it is wrong. You are free to believe what you choose - just like all of us. And you get to choose to be part of a sect of Christianity that also thinks that those centuries of councils and traditions and interpretations are wrong. What you don't get to do is ignore the fact that billions of Christians do believe them and you need to take that into account when talking about "Christianity" as a whole. You don't need to know the doctrine but when someone corrects you, just listen. Okay? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I found "amusing" is that you seem to be able to listen to Dogbreath so much more easily than you do to me. I get that there could be other reasons for that. Don't be discouraged, your posts are often both interesting and useful.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
BB, I'm sorry I missed this entire discussion while I was offline. I found your points to be interesting and valuable. I don't believe in the pre-existence, but I was interested to see how those Bible verses were interpreted by the Mormon church.
I will say that I know a sect of Protestants who believe in the pre-existence of humans, in that they believe this whole world is Earth Version 2 and that we existed here before.
ETA: Respectfully, Kate, I think Dogbreath came off less challenging/argumentative. But I think there must be precedents to this conversation that I've missed.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
kmbboots: No problem!
---
BB: To reiterate what Kate has said, I don't think you're wrong because you believe things and interpret the Bible in a way that isn't compatible with most of Christianity. Just that it's not correct to say "Christians believe this" when the overwhelming majority believe something mutually contradictory.
If it makes any difference, my own personal interpretation of the Bible and the nature of God is almost certainly heretical, and is probably closer to yours than any mainstream beliefs. (I've discussed it in depth here before, but a lot of it is my extrapolation on the writings of Saint Irenaeus) Then again, I usually hesitate to call myself Christian because my beliefs, while founded in Christian theology, are different enough from Christianity in general that I don't feel comfortable giving myself that label. I feel like it would be a misrepresentation.
Something that has caused a bit of wry amusement over the past few years in these discussions is that, in my (so far unsuccessful) search to find a church community that I can call home, I've run into a number of faux hippy franchise churches (with names like "The Porch" or "Harvest Fellowship" or what have you, the kind with pastors who smile all the time and hipster rock bands on stage) where the trendy thing to say for a while was "I don't believe in Religion, I believe in Jesus!" or "I don't like the baggage of the word 'Christian', I prefer to call myself a 'Follower of Christ'". It's very fashionable nowadays to avoid labels, even when they're perfectly applicable. You, on the other hand, care a great deal about the label and identity that comes with the word "Christian", even though your beliefs are so very distinct from Christianity in general where you could very justifiably call LDS a different religion. Not that I think you shouldn't call yourself a Christian - it doesn't make a difference to me - it's just an interesting contrast.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I get that you think it is wrong. You are free to believe what you choose - just like all of us. And you get to choose to be part of a sect of Christianity that also thinks that those centuries of councils and traditions and interpretations are wrong. What you don't get to do is ignore the fact that billions of Christians do believe them and you need to take that into account when talking about "Christianity" as a whole. You don't need to know the doctrine but when someone corrects you, just listen. Okay?
I wasn't trying to ignore that fact, though I was honestly amazed that we diverged on this doctrinal point, so that certainly made it hard for me to believe what you were suggesting, and then when we talk about how creeds are the proof that this is the way "Christianity" feels, I chaffed.
Speaking honestly, I find the conclusions those councils reached irritating, and horribly wrong, but that's on me to control. Interestingly enough, I have strong suspicions the Holy Ghost is a woman too. But that's certainly not taught in my church.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: BB, I'm sorry I missed this entire discussion while I was offline. I found your points to be interesting and valuable. I don't believe in the pre-existence, but I was interested to see how those Bible verses were interpreted by the Mormon church.
I will say that I know a sect of Protestants who believe in the pre-existence of humans, in that they believe this whole world is Earth Version 2 and that we existed here before.
If we go to any of Mormonism's canonized scriptures, or even Joseph Smiths' translation of the Bible, preexistence is inescapable. If you are interested in any verses, I'd be happy to link them.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:BB: To reiterate what Kate has said, I don't think you're wrong because you believe things and interpret the Bible in a way that isn't compatible with most of Christianity. Just that it's not correct to say "Christians believe this" when the overwhelming majority believe something mutually contradictory.
That's true. As I said before, the idea that other Christians do not believe in a pre-existence was astonishing to me, to the point I struggled to accept it.
It's is amusing that I care about being labeled a Christian while for you it carries a lot of baggage. Part of that is probably that Mormons have been told they aren't Christians (Not this time, but it was a conclusion this board reached in another thread) because they believe in a different Christ than the Nicene creed, and it has been that way over 180 years now. Our baptisms don't count, whereas other sects do for example when converting to Catholicism. IMHO part of the reasons Mormons in Utah ally so strongly with the GOP is because evangelicals are there, and they think it's the party of Jesus.
We also have scriptures that expressly say that a church must be Christ's church in name or else it belongs to somebody else. And that his followers are called Christians. So when others say that is not the case, we're kinda desperate for validation from other Christian sects. It's kind of depressing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's is amusing that I care about being labeled a Christian while for you it carries a lot of baggage. Part of that is probably that Mormons have been told they aren't Christians (Not this time, but it was a conclusion this board reached in another thread) because they believe in a different Christ than the Nicene creed, and it has been that way over 180 years now. Our baptisms don't count, whereas other sects do for example when converting to Catholicism. IMHO part of the reasons Mormons in Utah ally so strongly with the GOP is because evangelicals are there, and they think it's the party of Jesus.
I'm not really sure that's the reason, though? Mormons are far more Republican than any other religious group in the US - much more so than any Evangelical group. Also, why would Mormons identify more with Evangelicals (who, in my experience, are generally the MOST likely to be hostile towards Mormons) than, say, Catholics, Episcopalians, or Seventh Day Adventists?
I always thought it was more of a White identity thing for American Mormons, anyway, seeing as the Republican Party has a lot more "white and delightsome" folks than the Democrats. I have a number of non-white Mormon friends and coworkers here, and every last one of them is a staunch liberal. (They also resent a lot of the condescension and systemic racism they experience from Utah Mormons - one acquaintance of mine ended up leaving BYU in Provo due to the intense bigotry she experienced from other students there)
Posted by DavidSmith (Member # 13545) on :
I have a question. My one friend is not baptized. And he says that since he was not baptized in childhood, he should not believe in God. I think his position is not correct. and you?
Posted by DavidSmith (Member # 13545) on :
I have a question. My one friend is not baptized. And he says that since he was not baptized in childhood, he should not believe in God. I think his position is not correct. and you?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
Dogbreath:
quote:I'm not really sure that's the reason, though? Mormons are far more Republican than any other religious group in the US - much more so than any Evangelical group. Also, why would Mormons identify more with Evangelicals (who, in my experience, are generally the MOST likely to be hostile towards Mormons) than, say, Catholics, Episcopalians, or Seventh Day Adventists?
I always thought it was more of a White identity thing for American Mormons, anyway, seeing as the Republican Party has a lot more "white and delightsome" folks than the Democrats. I have a number of non-white Mormon friends and coworkers here, and every last one of them is a staunch liberal. (They also resent a lot of the condescension and systemic racism they experience from Utah Mormons - one acquaintance of mine ended up leaving BYU in Provo due to the intense bigotry she experienced from other students there)
1: I said one of the reasons.
2: There have been Christians hostile to Mormonism since its inception. That almost makes it worse because we try to bend over backwards to earn the label. But Nixon's rebranding of the Republican party was absolutely a shift in messaging where the GOP became the party of Jesus, whereas the Democratic party became the party of god*
We can see this today, the GOP if anything has pushed even further that it is the party of faith while the Democrats are the secular godless party. Add to this the fact the GOP claims loudly to be anti-abortion, pro-religious freedom, and small government, and you have the lion's share of reasons Utah Mormons largely identify as GOP.
White identity plays a role and it's super hard to overstate the huge effect Ezra Taft Benson played (Link) before he was a prophet on calcifying conservatism and demonizing liberalism as the way God felt about things. This again happened during the GOP Christian rebranding. But I think anti-socialism is the greater driver than racism.
In any case, you can find many liberal white Mormons in even Utah these days. It's increasingly common.
edit: It's an embarrassment your friends felt unwelcome here.
*lower case god, whatever you believe in or don't believe in is fine.
[ June 19, 2017, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
No. (Although that is true.*) What I am saying is that, like Mormons, Catholics can consider someone Christian and yet still have to baptise them if they convert.
*Along with several other Christian sects so not just Mormons.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
No. (Although that is true.*) What I am saying is that, like Mormons, Catholics can consider someone Christian and yet still have to baptise them if they convert.
*Along with several other Christian sects so not just Mormons.
But Catholics don't consider Mormons Christian, but the inverse is not true.
"While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.”"
Forgive me, I can't actually find the original statement I'm quoting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: [QUOTE] Forgive me, I can't actually find the original statement I'm quoting.
(Catholic Answers is a lay organization/magazine run out of San Diego. I don't know if it's publications are official or not - I think they are approved of by the Catholic Church anyway)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholic Answers takes too much upon themselves in my opinion. They are very conservative. They operate with permission but they are not a substitute or an official "spokesgroup".
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Thanks, kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: 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. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
*Despite the fact that the then-Cardinal likely considered squashing SSM the "range of problems" on which Mormons and Catholics could work together.
[ June 19, 2017, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In any case, you can find many liberal white Mormons in even Utah these days. It's increasingly common.
This appears to be incorrect. According to polling by the Pew Research center, Mormons are becoming more conservative with the passage of time, not less. So it would appear to be decreasingly common.
I suppose my main issue with your claim here that Republicans being the "party of Jesus" are the main reason why white Mormons are so overwhelmingly Republican is that, if that were the case, you would expect to see significant numbers of minority Mormons who also vote Republican because it's the party of Jesus. But that doesn't actually play out in real life. Mormon theology and beliefs in general appear to me (admittedly an outsider, but one who's read the Book of Mormon, D&C, and has read a decent amount about LDS history and practices) to be very socialistic in nature. To the point that all of the non-White Mormons I knew are much more liberal than I am economically, with some of them identifying as socialists. The contrast between beliefs and practice is especially jarring there.
That isn't to say Mormons now are choosing to vote Republican due to racist beliefs (I think, generally, most people just tend to vote for one party or the other due to it being the popular or easy thing to do in their family or community), but that that trend started more due to Nixon's racist dog whistling (which occurred at a point in time when Blacks were still being denied the priesthood) than due Republicans being "the party of Jesus."
For a better look at the origins of the Religious Right in the US, this article is pretty informative: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133_Page3.html#.WUhSB2grJhE I can say it's extremely accurate for my religious upbringing, anyway (I have family members to attended Bob Jones University, and they provided a lot of the intellectual backing of our denomination - many of the church staff attended seminary there), I'm not sure how much bleeds over into the Mormon experience in the 70s.
quote:edit: It's an embarrassment your friends felt unwelcome here.
I would say they didn't just "feel" unwelcome, they were pretty explicitly told that they were unwelcome.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's a list that specifies which denominations baptisms are considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. To (once again) reiterate kmbboots, It appears that the validity/invalidity of the baptism has nothing to do with whether they consider a denomination "Christian", but rather the ritual and doctrine behind the baptism. Specifically:
"Most Protestant baptisms are recognized as valid baptisms. Some are not. It is very difficult to question the validity of a baptism because of an intention either on the part of the minister or on the part of the one being baptized. Water must be poured and the Trinitarian formula naming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be used."
Since the LDS don't believe in the Trinity, this is most likely why their baptism is (currently) not seen as valid. There are numerous other denominations that are considered invalid for similar reasons if you read that document. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with singling out Mormons or calling them un-Christian.
ETA: Fixed link.
[ June 19, 2017, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'll try to address your other points tomorrow. I was not trying to suggest your friend's discomfort was all perception.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*sigh*
Yes, in 2016 there was a drop in the number of Mormons who identified as Republican - which correlates to a historically unpopular Republican presidential candidate and a conservative Independent candidate who just happened to be Mormon and from Utah. Voting for McMullin doesn't make one a liberal. Look at the rate of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I was not trying to suggest your friend's discomfort was all perception.
I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything, and this really is a genuine question since I've seen other times where you've had some conflicts arise due to you having a somewhat different English vernacular than most people (maybe due to growing up outside of the US?): do you really not understand that when you tell someone who experienced something bad "I'm sorry you feel like that bad thing happened", you are in effect telling them "I don't really believe that what you said actually happened"?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: We're back in that place again. Where I feel like you strongly dislike me (Which you've said is not the case), and talking to you starts to feel like a chore, because I like you, but I hate frustrating people.
quote:First result in Google.
I did look up that exact result, could not determine at that time if Catholic.com was any sort of official website. Could not figure out where to go to get an official statement. Ran out of time.
quote:Since the LDS don't believe in the Trinity, this is most likely why their baptism is (currently) not seen as valid. There are numerous other denominations that are considered invalid for similar reasons if you read that document. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with singling out Mormons or calling them un-Christian.
I was never trying to argue that Mormons are being "singled out" for this treatment. I'm aware we are not the only sect for which baptism is necessary. We can stop talking about Mormons being uniquely treated in this way, because neither of us believe that.
quote:*sigh*
Yes, in 2016 there was a drop in the number of Mormons who identified as Republican - which correlates to a historically unpopular Republican presidential candidate and a conservative Independent candidate who just happened to be Mormon and from Utah. Voting for McMullin doesn't make one a liberal. Look at the rate of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years.
Why the frustration, Dogbreath? I went to school at UVU and took classes at BYU. I was a political science major. I conducted exit polling. I lived in the seat of Mormon conservativism for 10 years. I've been a Mormon my entire life. When I tell you meeting white liberals is increasingly common, I get that's just one guy's opinion, but it's a pretty well developed one. And this former Republican could direct you to many Mormon white people who are liberals.
There wasn't a drop in just 2016, the drop started in 2012, which is why we see an increase in Mormons identifying as independent. You can go to Mormon wards in Washington DC where being a Republican is considered odd.
quote:I suppose my main issue with your claim here that Republicans being the "party of Jesus" are the main reason why white Mormons are so overwhelmingly Republican is that, if that were the case, you would expect to see significant numbers of minority Mormons who also vote Republican because it's the party of Jesus. But that doesn't actually play out in real life.
I never said it was "the main reason". I said it was a reason.
"IMHO part of the reasons Mormons in Utah ally so strongly with the GOP is because evangelicals are there, and they think it's the party of Jesus."
I also clarified that I was talking about Mormons in Utah.
quote:I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything, and this really is a genuine question since I've seen other times where you've had some conflicts arise due to you having a somewhat different English vernacular than most people (maybe due to growing up outside of the US?):
I seriously doubt whatever issues my vernacular have are a result of having grown up outside the US, unfortunately for me.
quote:do you really not understand that when you tell someone who experienced something bad "I'm sorry you feel like that bad thing happened", you are in effect telling them "I don't really believe that what you said actually happened"?
I understand that 100%. But that's not what I said. I said it's an embarrassment they felt unwelcome. I took you at their word that they felt unwelcome, and said it's an embarrassment that that happened. Why else would it be an embarrassment if not because they were mistreated? I wouldn't say it's an embarrassment if the Mormons your friends encountered did nothing wrong.
I've personally seen racism and prejudice directed towards minority groups, in Utah. It's also been directed at me (Because I was raised overseas). I was not questioning whether it had happened to your friends. I'm so sorry that happened.
Also as an aside, very impressed you've read the BOM and D&C. Would welcome the opportunity some time to get your impressions of particularly the former.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Yes. It makes sense that you think that your theology is correct. But we also think that our theology is correct. If you want to debate theology, we can but that is not what I am doing here. I am just saying that, while Catholics acknowledge that you follow Christ - and are therefore Christian, your notion of Christ is sufficiently different that when you baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you mean something fundamentally different from what we mean. Different enough that it does not follow our rules for baptism.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: We're back in that place again. Where I feel like you strongly dislike me (Which you've said is not the case), and talking to you starts to feel like a chore, because I like you, but I hate frustrating people
I'm sorry to be such a frustrating person, then. But seriously, what have I said to give you that impression? I've been pretty dispassionate and laid back in this discussion, used a lot of placating and conciliatory phrases so as not to come across as too pointed, and introduced my own experiences and perspectives for discussion rather than just focusing on yours. Can you look back through my posts here and identify what I said to give you that impression?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I said I feel I am frustrating you, Dogbreath. Not that you are frustrating. It's mostly inferred, but when you type "*sigh*" that to me is meant to clearly signal frustration or exasperation to me.
Is that the case?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Yes. It makes sense that you think that your theology is correct. But we also think that our theology is correct. If you want to debate theology, we can but that is not what I am doing here. I am just saying that, while Catholics acknowledge that you follow Christ - and are therefore Christian, your notion of Christ is sufficiently different that when you baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you mean something fundamentally different from what we mean. Different enough that it does not follow our rules for baptism.
I'm not sure I'm convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Mormons can be rightly called Christians.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority".
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I said I feel I am frustrating you, Dogbreath. Not that you are frustrating.
That may be what you meant, but you said that you feel that I "deeply dislike" you, talking to me feels like a chore, and that you like me but hate "frustrating people". Did you mean that you hate feeling like you are causing frustration in others?
quote:It's mostly inferred, but when you type "*sigh*" that to me is meant to clearly signal frustration or exasperation to me.
Is that the case?
I'm not seeing how you go from "mild exasperation at obstinance" to "deep dislike".
I mean, you posted a study that shows a pretty steady decline in the percentage of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years accompanied by a corresponding rise in the number who identify as Republican, and somehow inferred that that data actually means the percentage of liberal Mormons is increasing. And then when confronted with "hey BB, that doesn't make any sense" your reply is "well, I was a Political Science major, so my opinion is better than statistics anyway."
I'm not really sure how else to respond to that politely except with maybe a sigh or a wry smile. I don't really see how you perceive that as me deeply disliking you. But that being said, if it bothers or triggers you, I'll make sure not to express exasperation to you in that fashion again.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm not sure I'm convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Mormons can be rightly called Christians.
What would it take to convince you? The Pope outright stating "I hereby declare that Mormons can rightly be called Christians?" I mean, I'm not convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Baptists or Presbyterians or Anglicans can be called Christians either. Most likely because this would be inappropriate and cause needless strife. As far as I can see, the Vatican has the authority to declare what it means to be a Roman Catholic, but they have no authority or interest in declaring who gets to call themselves a Christian. The only group I've personally experienced that gets really big into defining who gets to be a "real Christian" are Born Again Evangelicals.
That being said, in the official document Kate provided, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI referred to the differences between "Mormon beliefs and mainline Christianity" rather than "Mormon beliefs and Christianity", which is a pretty solid indication that he does, in fact, have no issue with calling Mormons Christians. For example, one wouldn't refer to the differences between "Muslim beliefs and mainline Christianity" in that context.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
It's being able to identify as a Christian without any caveats. At least that matters to me personally.
quote: BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority". [/QB]
Oh, I'm aware. Were you aware that Arianism was prevalent enough that the council was necessary in the first place? And that failure to vote for the creed meant excommunication and exile? No wonder only three held out until the end.
Dogbreath:
quote:That may be what you meant, but you said that you feel that I "deeply dislike" you, talking to me feels like a chore, and that you like me but hate "frustrating people". Did you mean that you hate feeling like you are causing frustration in others?
Yes.
quote:I'm not seeing how you go from "mild exasperation at obstinance" to "deep dislike".
Alright. If I'm getting a different vibe than the one you are sending, what should I be feeling?
quote:I mean, you posted a study that shows a pretty steady decline in the percentage of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years accompanied by a corresponding rise in the number who identify as Republican
I saw a rise in Democrats in the 90s to 2000, a drop and then flat. But I also see an increase in those identifying as independent. I also see a drop from 63% GOP in the 90s to 48% today. That's a drop any way you swing it.
quote:And then when confronted with "hey BB, that doesn't make any sense" your reply is "well, I was a Political Science major, so my opinion is better than statistics anyway."
I can see how I may have conveyed that message. What it sounded like to me happened was, "Hey Dogbreath there's increasingly more liberal white Mormons." Which you then said, "No there isn't, I don't know any, and here's some statistics."
I was trying to respond with my own first hand experience of having experienced the group of people we are discussing. If you don't want to believe there are very many liberal white Mormons, I can agree they are still in the minority, but I don't think we are seeing an increase in Mormon enthusiasm for the GOP going forward.
quote:I'm not really sure how else to respond to that politely except with maybe a sigh or a wry smile. I don't really see how you perceive that as me deeply disliking you. But that being said, if it bothers or triggers you, I'll make sure not to express exasperation to you in that fashion again.
I like you Dogbreath. I'm even damned impressed with you. When you tell me *sigh* it comes across you'd rather stop talking because *I'm* too difficult to talk to. If you can refrain from writing out non-verbal language that conveys that message, super cool.
quote:What would it take to convince you? The Pope outright stating "I hereby declare that Mormons can rightly be called Christians?" I mean, I'm not convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Baptists or Presbyterians or Anglicans can be called Christians either. Most likely because this would be inappropriate and cause needless strife. As far as I can see, the Vatican has the authority to declare what it means to be a Roman Catholic, but they have no authority or interest in declaring who gets to call themselves a Christian. The only group I've personally experienced that gets really big into defining who gets to be a "real Christian" are Born Again Evangelicals.
That being said, in the official document Kate provided, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI referred to the differences between "Mormon beliefs and mainline Christianity" rather than "Mormon beliefs and Christianity", which is a pretty solid indication that he does, in fact, have no issue with calling Mormons Christians. For example, one wouldn't refer to the differences between "Muslim beliefs and mainline Christianity" in that context.
Maybe a complete end to the debate, "Are Mormons Christian?"
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
It's being able to identify as a Christian without any caveats. At least that matters to me personally.
Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
quote:
quote: BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority".
Oh, I'm aware. Were you aware that Arianism was prevalent enough that the council was necessary in the first place? And that failure to vote for the creed meant excommunication and exile? No wonder only three held out until the end.
Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
BB, it isn't your religion. Your religion believes something else and that is okay. You can do that without being exiled now. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
quote:Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
You don't understand why a council that ultimately is an indispensable reason for why the church I belong to has never been considered Christian by a majority of other Christians matters?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Alright. If I'm getting a different vibe than the one you are sending, what should I be feeling?
The problem is I'm not really sure what vibe you're getting. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't said anything remotely rude to you, have been pretty calm and balanced with my approach, and have tried to couch everything I've said in neutral or placating language. By which I mean, if I were trying to convey a tone, it would be friendly and amicable - which is what I inferred the tone of this discussion to be. There hasn't been much in the way of heated debate, or "yelling", or any insults or slights to speak of and then, *BAM*, seemingly out of nowhere you say you're getting a vibe I strongly dislike you and I have no idea why. Which is why I've asked you to quantify what it is exactly that makes you feel that way.
quote:I can see how I may have conveyed that message. What it sounded like to me happened was, "Hey Dogbreath there's increasingly more liberal white Mormons." Which you then said, "No there isn't, I don't know any, and here's some statistics."
That much is false, I never said that. I know a number of liberal White Mormons.
quote:I was trying to respond with my own first hand experience of having experienced the group of people we are discussing. If you don't want to believe there are very many liberal white Mormons, I can agree they are still in the minority, but I don't think we are seeing an increase in Mormon enthusiasm for the GOP going forward.
That's the problem. I wasn't saying "you don't know loads of liberal White Mormons", I was disagreeing with your assessment that the number of them is increasing and has been for a while. Notably, you didn't say "the number of Mormons who identify as Republican is decreasing." That being said, if what you're claiming is that you're meeting more and more liberal White Mormons - sure, that's fine, I have no doubt that you are.
quote:Maybe a complete end to the debate, "Are Mormons Christian?"
That debate wasn't started by the Roman Catholic Church, though, and I doubt them being involved would end it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
32% say no. That's just Americans, of course. (And not all Americans are Christian - but enough that I don't think it would skew the numbers dramatically if you factor out non-Christians. But even assuming Christians surveyed would be more likely to say no, it's not enough to turn 32% into a "large majority")
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Like, literally if 0% of the non-Christians surveyed said "no", that would mean that only 45% of American Christians said "no." (Going at the conservative estimate of slightly more than 70% of Americans are Christian - again, from Pew)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
quote:Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
You don't understand why a council that ultimately is an indispensable reason for why the church I belong to has never been considered Christian by a majority of other Christians matters?
No. Our beliefs which were (and still are being) codified at that and many other councils and your beliefs which are incompatible with ours are the reason why some Christians may not consider you Christian. You may just as well blame your own doctrine as ours. If you think blame needs to happen.
[ June 21, 2017, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
On a trip this week. Will try to reengage when I get back.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Have fun!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Safe travels, BlackBlade!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
This is an extremely interesting thread! I'm going to make sure I read carefully back through the whole thing though, before I feel any need to chime in :-)
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
32% say no. That's just Americans, of course. (And not all Americans are Christian - but enough that I don't think it would skew the numbers dramatically if you factor out non-Christians. But even assuming Christians surveyed would be more likely to say no, it's not enough to turn 32% into a "large majority")
I'm pleased to see it seems to be getting better. Growing up, it was pretty clear the other Christians did not consider Mormonism a Christian religion. My school's religious curriculum always made that clear. The (until previously) majority American view that Mormons wouldn't make good presidents. And yes statistics I'd see where Mormons were viewed by the majority as not Christian.
I'd still find it more likely that once we get outside the US, Christians increasingly don't think Mormons are Christian. The US is the birthplace of Mormonism.
quote:No. Our beliefs which were (and still are being) codified at that and many other councils and your beliefs which are incompatible with ours are the reason why some Christians may not consider you Christian. You may just as well blame your own doctrine as ours. If you think blame needs to happen.
It's not that I think blame needs to happen, it's the rationale for why there is even a question as to whether Mormonism is Christian.
Look, I get these councils to you carry great weight, just as the utterances of our modern day prophets and from the Book of Mormon carry great weight. But it would be impossible for us to work from a place of "My folks say this." and get anywhere conclusive. So I'm trying to strip it back to just the things we *do* agree on. Hence my use of the Bible.
Granted we both read the Bible and draw very different conclusions because we go into it with very different assumptions about the nature of God/Man/Devil/Angels/etc.
So what exactly do you feel a spirit is?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
First, Catholicism is not sola scriptura as our doctrine is based on tradition, teaching, and revelation, as well as scripture. It is not just that I place weight on the various councils that have codified tradition and teaching; it is that, for Catholics, the councils are supposed to reflect the revealed doctrine of the Church. They don't always and sometimes they do but the Vatican has its own ideas but disregarding them is like cutting away a leg of a three-legged stool.
I am not sure what you mean by the question of spirit? Do you mean the Holy Spirit? Do you mean souls? Do you mean angels?
I am also not sure what, exactly, you want to accomplish here. Are you trying to convince me that Trinitarian thinking is incorrect?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
No. I'm trying to understand that if there is no pre-existence, then what is man's spirit? I'm trying to understand.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Do I get my $1M then? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean to suggest that our souls have to pre-exist creation or our life (whenever that starts)? Or do you mean that the Holy Spirit could not have existed without being in human beings so human beings must have pre-existed?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do I get my $1M then?
If you can find a worldwide poll of Christians stating whether Mormons are or are not Christian and show less than a large majority, I suppose.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean to suggest that our souls have to pre-exist creation or our life (whenever that starts)? Or do you mean that the Holy Spirit could not have existed without being in human beings so human beings must have pre-existed?
I'm not talking about the Holy Ghost. Mormons believe men's spirits were created before their physical bodies were. Some elements of who we are were given shape then. Our spirits existed in a pre-mortal realm where God goes, and are sent from that place to Earth. Upon dying their spirits exit their bodies and go elsewhere.
For Catholics, do men have spirits? If so, what are they. When were they created?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. Like in the Bluebird. We have souls. They are part of us, so began with us.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Bluebird?
For purposes of this discussion could we agree on this terminology? Is it consistent with your beliefs?
Spirit: Non body part of us.
Body: Obvious.
Soul: Spirit inside a body.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not exactly. "Spirit" has several definitions. One of those could be a non-body part of us. Or it could be the Holy Spirit which is god in us. Or it could merely mean life/breath rather than soul. Or it could be a synonym for soul. Depends on context. It is sometimes used generally rather than specifically.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do I get my $1M then?
If you can find a worldwide poll of Christians stating whether Mormons are or are not Christian and show less than a large majority, I suppose.
Is it really that hard for you to admit that you were wrong?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wikipedia includes you among Christian denominations.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: After all these years on this board I'm a bit astonished you or any other long time user would ask me that.
And you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. I can admit it's not as lopsided as I'd supposed in the US. It may even be not much different else where. But I'm not convinced it isn't a large majority opinion worldwide.
If I'm wrong, well that's a good thing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So, absent any evidence whatsoever supporting your claim, and in the face of evidence demonstrating that the opposite is true, you are so strongly convinced that a large majority of non-American Christians believe Mormons aren't Christians (a large enough majority to even overwhelm the majority of American Christians, who don't say "no") that you'd be willing to bet $1 million that you're right. You're that convinced.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Do you not remember saying these things?
"You need to realize, though, that most of the world outside of your religion defines Christianity in a way that excludes Mormons"
"...most other Christian denominations don't recognize Mormons as Christian."
That's a hair's breadth of space from "Most Christians don't consider Mormons Christian." Do I have a worldwide census of Christians that have answered the questions "Are Mormons Christian"? No. Nothing close. We have one poll from a US population, where we might expect it would be Mormonisms strongest showing on the Christianity question.
I do have a lifetime of experience having the conversation over and over and over. I have two years of my life in Taiwan talking to loads of people about it.
But in answer to your question, no. I don't have evidence. Would I actually spend $1M on a bet? No, I don't gamble. It was an expression of my certainty.
[ June 28, 2017, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So we're back to "my personal experience and beliefs on how things are trumps statistics that suggest otherwise." If the world is getting hotter, then why is it snowing outside?
FWIW, there's a huge difference between definition and acceptance of others who fall outside of that definition. Since you're bringing up old conversations, that was a discussion specifically about the Nicene Creed. If you ask someone "what does it mean to be Christian", most will say something in line with "someone who holds to the beliefs made explicit in the Nicene Creed". They will do so because that has been the common bedrock of what practically all Christians believe for some 1700 years and was literally created to answer the question of "what is a Christian" precisely - it wasn't invented recently in order to exclude Mormons.
But, as I said in that conversation before, just because those churches define Christianity in such a way that it is incompatible with Mormon beliefs, it doesn't mean that most Christians aren't willing to accept that Mormons call themselves Christians, or are unwilling to call them members of a Christian religion. And statistics bears that out. (I'd imagine those who do answer "no" probably do based on definition, not out of a desire to exclude Mormons in particular)
It seems like in this conversation you've been expressing a lot of anger (or at least, speaking contemptuously about "councils", distain) that most Christians have a radically different, fundamental understanding and set of beliefs about the nature of God and Christ than Mormons do. But despite those differences, most Christians are willing to accept Mormons as Christians anyway, and Mormons are free to define what "Christian" means as they choose. So it seems like you are angry that others are also free to believe as they choose, and to believe that being a Christian means believing in different things than you do?
Just because I think being a Christian means believing xyz doesn't mean I can't accept that you believe it means believing abc, even if those beliefs are mutually exclusive. If you really believed that, then logically you'd have to say that all non-Mormons are non-Christian. But since you can accept that you define Christianity radically differently than other Christians, but can still accept that they are Christians, why is it so hard for you to turn that around and accept the same is true about other Christians and Mormons?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:So we're back to "my personal experience and beliefs on how things are trumps statistics that suggest otherwise." If the world is getting hotter, then why is it snowing outside?
No. Maybe consider your evidence doesn't actually erase all the memories I have of being told I'm not a "real Christian" or that "Mormonism is a cult." Like right now, I'm engage elsewhere in a conversation online with a Christian gentleman who is trying to show me that Mormonism is a fraud and doesn't count as Christian; I've had this conversation numerous times. A poll doesn't erase the times I've seen pamphlets specifically written to prove why Mormons aren't Christians.
Here's a poll of Christian pastors.
Link. Only 11% agree we are Christians. If you go to your pastor about this question, he/she is probably going to tell you the answer is no.
There's (the link didn't survive, and I can't find it right now) another poll that looked at voters, and it splits 50/50. And you want me to believe that if we polled Christians worldwide it really stays about the same as the US?
You weren't in the church when there was a major shift in emphasizing Christ in our missionary materials, classroom discussions, conference talks, even our logo, expressly because we wanted to be counted among Christians. We'd tried boldly standing alone, and being a peculiar people, and being happy with just being called Mormons, it was getting in the way of who we actually believed ourselves to be.
quote:It seems like in this conversation you've been expressing a lot of anger (or at least, speaking contemptuously about "councils", distain) that most Christians have a radically different, fundamental understanding and set of beliefs about the nature of God and Christ than Mormons do. But despite those differences, most Christians are willing to accept Mormons as Christians anyway, and Mormons are free to define what "Christian" means as they choose. So it seems like you are angry that others are also free to believe as they choose, and to believe that being a Christian means believing in different things than you do?
Just because I think being a Christian means believing xyz doesn't mean I can't accept that you believe it means believing abc, even if those beliefs are mutually exclusive. If you really believed that, then logically you'd have to say that all non-Mormons are non-Christian. But since you can accept that you define Christianity radically differently than other Christians, but can still accept that they are Christians, why is it so hard for you to turn that around and accept the same is true about other Christians and Mormons?
Are you asking me why it's hard that Christians allow that I'm a Christian but define it differently?
If so, I don't think I've ever even tried to say that. If not, I'm not sure I understand.
[ June 29, 2017, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:So we're back to "my personal experience and beliefs on how things are trumps statistics that suggest otherwise." If the world is getting hotter, then why is it snowing outside?
No. Maybe consider your evidence doesn't actually erase all the memories I have of being told I'm not a "real Christian" or that "Mormonism is a cult." Like right now, I'm engage elsewhere in a conversation online with a Christian gentleman who is trying to show me that Mormonism is a fraud and doesn't count as Christian; I've had this conversation numerous times. A poll doesn't erase the times I've seen pamphlets specifically written to prove why Mormons aren't Christians.
BlackBlade, I never tried to "erase all your memories". You didn't just say "I've had a lot of experiences being told I'm not a Christian", you said "I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no." That's not a statement of personal experience, that's a categorical statement that applies to an entire group of people, specifically one you believe can be backed up by polling. You saying that me refuting that claim by providing poll data that contradicts it is somehow an attempt to discredit your memories is, frankly, disingenuous.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:So we're back to "my personal experience and beliefs on how things are trumps statistics that suggest otherwise." If the world is getting hotter, then why is it snowing outside?
No. Maybe consider your evidence doesn't actually erase all the memories I have of being told I'm not a "real Christian" or that "Mormonism is a cult." Like right now, I'm engage elsewhere in a conversation online with a Christian gentleman who is trying to show me that Mormonism is a fraud and doesn't count as Christian; I've had this conversation numerous times. A poll doesn't erase the times I've seen pamphlets specifically written to prove why Mormons aren't Christians.
BlackBlade, I never tried to "erase all your memories". You didn't just say "I've had a lot of experiences being told I'm not a Christian", you said "I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no." That's not a statement of personal experience, that's a categorical statement that applies to an entire group of people, specifically one you believe can be backed up by polling. You saying that me refuting that claim by providing poll data that contradicts it is somehow an attempt to discredit your memories is, frankly, disingenuous.
And I still stand by that statement. But then you keep bringing up my anecdotes as my refusing to let evidence have the final say.
Are you saying that when Christians define Christianity however they wish, I need to accept that it may or may not exclude me, and be OK with it?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: And I still stand by that statement. But then you keep bringing up my anecdotes as my refusing to let evidence have the final say.
Yes, because so far the only evidence you've provided that supports that claim has been anecdotal. Your claim depends on a rather absurd belief that while a minority of Americans (where the Christian group probably most hostile to Mormons and most obsessed with who is a "real Christian" (they don't accept Catholics as Real Christians either) - Evangelicals - has a massive foothold) say "no", but that Christians literally everywhere else overwhelmingly say "no." You haven't provided any data to suggest non-American Christians have a much harsher view of Mormons being Christians than American Christians do, and the high diversity in denominations and beliefs among American Christian groups makes it a pretty decent sample of global Christianity. (Again, controlling for Evangelicals)
In other words, you're holding a belief about how a whole group of people behaves with no evidence to support your claims - and in spite of evidence presented that contradicts it - because of bad experiences with individuals of that group. Do you see how that kind of thinking is problematic?
quote:Are you saying that when Christians define Christianity however they wish, I need to accept that it may or may not exclude me, and be OK with it?
Yes. Though to flip it around, those Christians have defined Christianity that way since 325 AD, and those definitions make up the core of what they believe and how they interpret the Bible. Your "not being OK with it" is, in effect, asking them to change their fundamental beliefs on the nature of God to accommodate contradictory beliefs.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I've provided one poll (Two, if I could find the URL again). I've never said anything about Evangelicals. I never said anything about non-American Christians being harsh. They probably think they same thing you've described. If they've heard of Mormons its in the context of their not being like other Christians and probably distinct.
I've tried to find other polls about this question and other than the poll you've linked, and the two I found, I can't find any others. I'd hardly call that definitive.
quote:In other words, you're holding a belief about how a whole group of people behaves with no evidence to support your claims - and in spite of evidence presented that contradicts it - because of bad experiences with individuals of that group. Do you see how that kind of thinking is problematic?
I do have evidence for myself, my own experiences. I'm not arguing it's compelling for anybody else. I'm not refusing to look at further evidence. But your poll doesn't by itself make me wrong. My not having evidence makes my beliefs unproven.
quote:Yes. Though to flip it around, those Christians have defined Christianity that way since 325 AD, and those definitions make up the core of what they believe and how they interpret the Bible. Your "not being OK with it" is, in effect, asking them to change their fundamental beliefs on the nature of God to accommodate contradictory beliefs.
You mean like we just did in a generation about the definition of marriage?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: I've provided one poll (Two, if I could find the URL again).
Neither of which indicates that "a large majority of Christians" would say no.
quote:I do have evidence for myself, my own experiences. I'm not arguing it's compelling for anybody else.
Your own anecdotal experience do not count as evidence for a categorical statement about an entire group of people. Even if it's only for yourself.
quote:I'm not refusing to look at further evidence. But your poll doesn't by itself make me wrong.
Sure it does. Unless you're suggesting Pew's methodology is so wildly inaccurate that it shows 32% saying "no" when it's really 80% or 90%? (What qualifies as a "large majority" for you?)
quote:My not having evidence makes my beliefs unproven.
Then you are choosing to believe something that is entirely unsupported by facts. And in this case, something that polling suggests is untrue.
quote:You mean like we just did in a generation about the definition of marriage?
Marriage is not a religion. And also, it's possible for me to accept that two men can be married, call them a married couple, and treat them as such, without me having to marry a man myself. Your analogy doesn't hold there.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: Alright. You've made your point. I can't at this time prove a majority of Christians worldwide would fail to identify Mormons as Christians. Or at least provide evidence stronger than the Pew Research poll you linked.
quote:Marriage is not a religion. And also, it's possible for me to accept that two men can be married, call them a married couple, and treat them as such, without me having to marry a man myself. Your analogy doesn't hold there.
It's possible for you to accept that Mormons are Christian, call them Christians, and treat them as such, without your having to be Mormon in order to do so.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's possible for you to accept that Mormons are Christian, call them Christians, and treat them as such, without your having to be Mormon in order to do so.
Yes! Exactly. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Not exactly. "Spirit" has several definitions. One of those could be a non-body part of us. Or it could be the Holy Spirit which is god in us. Or it could merely mean life/breath rather than soul. Or it could be a synonym for soul. Depends on context. It is sometimes used generally rather than specifically.
So do Catholics believe people have spirits as in a non-body part of themselves?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can you give me a context? "Spirit" can be what makes us alive. What animates us. It comes from the same word as "breath" or "wind" - ruah ( ruʹach?) or pneu'ma. But sometimes "anima" is also translated to spirit. Or even psyche. It can also mean feelings ("poor in spirit"). It can be sometimes used interchangeably with "soul".
Spirit can mean life-force. Like a computer requires electricity to run. Perhaps you could think of spirit as electricity and soul as programming? But it is so much more fluid and non-specific than that. Remember that the scriptures we read now are translations and collections by different writers. Sometime "soul" and "spirit" seem to be interchangeable. Sometimes they are definitely separate things. "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart."
And then there is the Holy Spirit which is another kettle of fish.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I understand spirit can mean lots of things. Do they have a non-body spirit identity. You mentioned Bluebird. Like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Before we have a physical existence? No. And i wouldn't say "spirit identity" even after. Sounds like you are trying to get at "soul". "Spirit" is not who we are; it is what creates life. "Kate's spirit" is what makes Kate live and be not a spirit that is Kate.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm sorry, you are confusing me. Ignoring a pre-existence right now.
Is there a spirit part of me distinct from my body that retains my identity when my body dies? If you want to call that a soul that's fine too.
[ June 30, 2017, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe so.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm not Catholic so what I say may or may not jive with Catholic theology, so take it with a grain of salt. But in the tradition I grew up in:
Just as God is three persons in one being, humans, created in God's image, are also three persons in one being. So if you were to say "Taylor" or "Taylor's identity" you would mean, "the person made up of Taylor's body, soul, and spirit."
And in a reflection of the Trinity, your soul is your will, your consciousness, the driving, progenerative aspect of your being. Your body is your physical manifestation - the animal you're inhabiting and controlling, so to speak. And your spirit is the relationship that proceeds from between the two, the thing that connects your body and soul, and also the person with whom the Holy Spirit interacts, prods, guides, and leads. In the personhood of God, there is perfect love between all three parts so they act in harmony. Whereas for humans, the relationship between body, spirit, and soul is damaged and fallible - thus verses like "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."
In that sense, I guess your "soul" is what you might think of as being the part of you that remains existing after you die. Whereas your body obviously isn't there, and your "spirit", being defined by the relationship between body and soul, probably isn't definite in that state.
But this is why the resurrection of the dead is so important to most Christians - it's only in the resurrected body that you become "you" again, Body, Spirit, and Soul, as opposed to just Soul. I'm not sure if a soul has memories, for example, or can properly said to be able to think, since it doesn't have a brain. To convert it into computing terms, I would maybe think of the soul as a self-aware program or something, something that has its own set of directions and drives the action, but which requires a processor to think and a hard drive to store data, and printers, monitors, scanners, and robotic limbs to access the world around it. So I'm not sure if, after you die, you continue to exist in the sense of having memories or being able to think about such things as existing, but I think you'll still be aware of existing. I'd like to think that you'll somehow regain those memories or an analogy of them in your resurrected body, though.
In other words, I'm not sure if there's a precise analogy to the Mormon idea of one's "spirit" since I think Mormons have a different conception of what a person actually is, but I think "soul" might be closest?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
kmbboots: Would you call the part of you the remains after death your spirit or your soul?
Dogbreath: Mormons think the resurrection is important for several reasons.
1: Having a resurrected body brings us that much closer to being like God. Our obtaining mortal bodies we a prerequisite step for obtaining a resurrected one.
2: Our scriptures describe post-mortal spirits being uncomfortable almost tormented in some way as they wait for the day of resurrection.
To me it's not exactly clear what attributes a spirit has prior to being born. I mean appearance seems hard to fathom because DNA plays a huge role in how we look and even act. But we do believe we were all distinct personalities with a will of our own prior to being born. Upon death, that same spirit now carrying experiences gleaned in mortality goes into paradise or prison awaiting the day of the resurrection and then judgement.
But as for terminology. Soul/Spirit isn't exactly fixed. But I think we have a two part system (Very interesting about the trinity connection for you). The Spirit, The Body. The Holy Ghost interacts with our spirit but can also interact with our body which is why The Holy Ghost has no body at present, so he can enter into us.
When Jesus speaks with Legion in the NT those are what we would call evil spirits (Ignoring the baggage I have about demonic possession). They too enter into people's bodies.
Sometimes the word soul is used to describe a spirit united with a body. But the scriptures even our extended canon are not consistent in this usage.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That's really interesting, BB. Thanks!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would probably say "soul".
I would say that when people die, their soul enters into eternity. In eternity, time is different - non-linear so "waiting" is not what we think of as "waiting".
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
How would you describe it.
[ July 04, 2017, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If time as we know it is a line, eternity is a plane.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
OK. How does that affect how we experience things?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What are you asking? Obviously, my understanding of eternity is purely theoretical rather than experiential.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I guess I was hoping you could give me an understanding of what Catholicism teaches about souls and what they do after death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This thread has become entirely hilarious.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
So I've been lurking on the forum for a while. This topic interested me.
While I don't have anything to add beyond what Dogbreath or kmbboots contributed to the discussion in regards to the theology, I do have some thoughts for you BB.
You seem to be frustrated to not have the LDS doctrine included in christianity as a whole. My question is, does it matter? I have periods of doubt and seasons of frustration. I've read the bible a number of times, but I don't know it like I should. I don't really care if I'm considered a christian or not. I personally don't think it really matters. Certainly not when we die. Does God care about our labels? Hell, I'm probably a lousy christian according to most church governing bodies. I swear and likely drink beer too much. Oh well.
My best friend is LDS. We grew up together. I grew up going to a lutheran church, he went to his local ward. We've had countless discussions about our differing beliefs. He even bore his testimony to me with tears running down his face about how sincerely he believes the doctrines of the LDS church and wished I would too. He got married a few years back, I was the best man but couldn't participate in the sealing ceremony as a nonbeliever. During a visit last year, I got in another hours long discussion about the nicene creed for the umpteenth time. We discussed a lot of the same bible passages as this thread has, especially the gospel of John since it's likely the best example of the origins of the trinitarian belief.
I'm sharing this because we're still good friends. The reason we're still friends because at the end every discussion when we both realize we're not changing our minds, we both understand that we both believe in Christ's atonement. We both acknowledge that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God or any other doctrinal beliefs originating from spiritual revelation.
I told him if we both croaked at the same time and stood before Jesus in heaven and professed faith in the atonement, I think he'd let us both in, regardless of difference in doctrine. I'm sure one of us would have to resist saying I told you so...
I know a lot of "christians" that say mormons are going to hell, but I'm not one of them. And I would never attend a church that teaches that. They're not "christians" either then. Just my two cents.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Nick: I don't think you understand why it's important to me. It has absolutely nothing to do with how God feels about me.
I have no worries that God will care one wit about in the judgement of other people do I make the grade. So why do I care?
Because while salvation is a deeply personal experience, it's also a communal one. To use Paul's words, we are "Joint heirs with Christ." We are "The Body of Christ" and to be told by other Christians, "You don't really fit in" it hurts. To be told how I should feel about it, bugs me because I've been accused of tone policing numerous times on this board. Yes, I get that not everybody who says, "Lord, Lord" is going to heaven anyway.
But my entire life I've tried to be a Christian. The word was so important to people in the past they suffered and died as martyrs for it. I want to belong with others who follow that same God, and believe in Christ.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This thread has become entirely hilarious.
Do go on.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: To be told how I should feel about it, bugs me because I've been accused of tone policing numerous times on this board.
Where has anyone told you how you should feel about it
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: Nate said, "You seem to be frustrated to not have the LDS doctrine included in christianity as a whole. My question is, does it matter?"
My translation of that is "Is this a valid thing to be frustrated about?"
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That's a pretty hostile reading of Nick's post.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I've posted repeatedly that this is important to me, and when somebody says, "Does it matter?" your response is that I'm being hostile if it rubs me the wrong way.
If somebody went on about how important marriage was to them, but because they were in a SSM people wouldn't validate it the same way, and somebody on this board said, "Does it really matter?" Would you call them hostile for saying it bothered them?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I didn't call you hostile.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm not interested in further discussing how I'm feeling about this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Okay then.
---
Nick: I appreciated your post, and hope you stick around for a while. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'd like to echo that I was glad to see Nick around.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yo BlackBlade, I enjoyed this thread and the discussion you had with Kate and DB. I'm sorry it has been a frustrating experience for you. (Same goes to DB and Kate to the extent that it applies.)
One thing I noticed is that you were asking some questions about Catholic (or Nicene) theology where the question was framed in LDS theology. Which I get. LDS theology is my own reference point whenever I think about religion and try to understand other religions.
But, I've been outside for a while, and here's the outsider perspective: I think it's going to be tough for you to grok the theological answers you seek when you are looking to reconcile or compare to your own beliefs. Just for instance, starting from the Mormon concept of the spirit and then asking, effectively, "what do Catholics call this"? I think it leads to confusion and a less complete understanding than if you asked an open ended question, or for a reference to read.
This wouldn't be worth pointing out except for the desire you have expressed for inclusion and community with other Christians. I think you'll get farther with that if you go farther with understanding their beliefs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The (main) reason I find it funny, BB, is that a lot of Mormons really just don't get the issue here.
I mean, you guys have at least two completely additional scriptures above and beyond the "traditional" Christian set that espouse doctrines and beliefs that are no more compatible with most readings of those original scriptures than the Qu'ran is. At least most Muslims acknowledge that they aren't Christians (although their belief in "progressive revelation" makes that distinction largely moot from some perspectives); at least most Christians acknowledge that they aren't Jewish. But Mormons not only call themselves Christian (and demand a seat at the Christian table) but often call non-Mormons gentiles and in some cases think of themselves as a Jewish tribe (and a direct inheritor of Jewish religion.) I don't think this is particularly rude or outrageous of them, mind. But it always amazes me when they're surprised by resistance, as if they really don't realize the ways in which their beliefs are literally anathema to most other Christian sects (and certainly Jewish ones, which are pretty explicit about what you'd need to do to qualify to be Jewish).
I understand that terminology is important. And I think self-identification is important, too. I have no problem calling someone a "woman" even if she has a penis, and I have no problem calling Mormons "Christian." But I think there may well be meaningful distinctions between the way we treat a woman with a penis and a woman without a penis when they show up at the hospital with certain medical complaints, and I think there may well be meaningful distinctions between Christians who think their souls have always existed and might someday ascend to godhood themselves and pretty much all the other Christians everywhere.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I would largely agree with your post, Tom, with the caveat that things like gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnicity are innate and personal. Something you're born with, not something you chose, and not a group you choose to join. I think a better analogy to religion would be a political party or a club or a fraternity. Edit: Or maybe nationality. (In the sense that one can be "born" into a religion/religious culture. Though religious affiliation is generally much easier to change than nationality)
[ July 06, 2017, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I'm just not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I'm happy to try to explain points of doctrine as far as it can be explained and as far as I understand it. But what if feels like you are trying to is overturn 1700 years of fundamental Christian tradition and the beliefs of billions of people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm going to try again.
scifibum:
quote:One thing I noticed is that you were asking some questions about Catholic (or Nicene) theology where the question was framed in LDS theology. Which I get. LDS theology is my own reference point whenever I think about religion and try to understand other religions.
I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion at present when I'm presently using the terminology Kate gives me to work with, and asking only what her and Catholicism makes of those things.
I can certainly see how earlier when we were discussing Nicene creed that was a problem. I'm trying to avoid it by just understanding what Christians are talking about.
------------
Tom:
quote:I mean, you guys have at least two completely additional scriptures above and beyond the "traditional" Christian set that espouse doctrines and beliefs that are no more compatible with most readings of those original scriptures than the Qu'ran is.
I disagree that's the case. They certainly go against the majority opinion on what most Christians assert those scriptures mean, but they are not incompatible with the original text, and particularly in the past other Christian branches in some instances had similar views as we do on certain points.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and most every Christian agreed that the Book of Mormon was Christian scripture along with the Bible for example, but there was a group that insisted the BOM did not belong in the canon and that they wanted to stick with the Bible, their belief that they were Christians too should be heeded and accepted.
quote:At least most Muslims acknowledge that they aren't Christians (although their belief in "progressive revelation" makes that distinction largely moot from some perspectives); at least most Christians acknowledge that they aren't Jewish
This is irrelevant. Muslims themselves would disagree with being called Christians, and would argue their own doctrine makes that descriptor uncalled for. I wouldn't even need to point out that Christ has no exalted status for them.
quote:But Mormons not only call themselves Christian (and demand a seat at the Christian table) but often call non-Mormons gentiles and in some cases think of themselves as a Jewish tribe (and a direct inheritor of Jewish religion.)
I have rarely ever heard the term gentile in these days ever used to describe non-Mormons. Like I would actually find it distracting were it used today. Non-Mormons are typically referred to as non-members. Referring to Christians as "Other Christians" is very common in our discourse.
We don't consider ourselves Jews. But we do consider ourselves outsiders adopted into the House of Israel. I thought historically it was fairly typical for Christians to refer to themselves as "Israel" is it not?
quote:But it always amazes me when they're surprised by resistance, as if they really don't realize the ways in which their beliefs are literally anathema to most other Christian sects (and certainly Jewish ones, which are pretty explicit about what you'd need to do to qualify to be Jewish).
I've never heard a Mormon make a point of trying to tell a Jew that they ought to call them Jews too. I've never heard Mormons discuss wishing to have the descriptor applied to them. I'm pretty sure we're comfortable with who is being called Jewish and who is not.
As for our beliefs being anathema to Christianity. Again, this cuts both ways. We see many of these differences as apostasy from what the scriptures (Including the Bible) say. But we don't say these differences disqualify one from being called a Christian. Call it being a minority and that if we were in the majority we'd be whistling a different tune, but at present that's how we feel about it.
quote:I understand that terminology is important. And I think self-identification is important, too. I have no problem calling someone a "woman" even if she has a penis, and I have no problem calling Mormons "Christian." But I think there may well be meaningful distinctions between the way we treat a woman with a penis and a woman without a penis when they show up at the hospital with certain medical complaints, and I think there may well be meaningful distinctions between Christians who think their souls have always existed and might someday ascend to godhood themselves and pretty much all the other Christians everywhere.
We already draw those distinctions. We're called Mormons too. We call other people Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. We call people what they think they are.
Call us Mormons, I'm not taking any offense with that. I might have back when it was pejorative, and for some it still is, but whatever. Do you have some better way of determining what to call us?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I'm just not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I'm happy to try to explain points of doctrine as far as it can be explained and as far as I understand it. But what if feels like you are trying to is overturn 1700 years of fundamental Christian tradition and the beliefs of billions of people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I'm just not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I'm happy to try to explain points of doctrine as far as it can be explained and as far as I understand it. But what if feels like you are trying to is overturn 1700 years of fundamental Christian tradition and the beliefs of billions of people.
At this point between you and me, and others who are willing to talk about it. I just want to understand how other Christians understand these concepts. I have no desire to evangelize or demonstrate for others some sort of compatibility. I am always eager to share how I/Mormons see these concepts.
It's become clear to me (Particularly by my failing to realize other Christians don't believe in a pre-existence) that there is quite a bit other Christian's beliefs that I am ignorant or misunderstand. I don't know if you recall, but I had a long-running Q&A with Judaism thread here for the exact same reason.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I have no desire to evangelize or demonstrate for others some sort of compatibility.
Then why do you keep bristling at the fact that, at its core, most of Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with Mormon beliefs?
You've made it clear that it isn't good enough for most Christians to define Christianity in terms of adherence to the Nicene Creed but still accept that Mormons call themselves Christians, you actually want them to change that definition. Which is simply impossible without them changing their core beliefs as well.
So if you don't want others to change their fundamental religious beliefs, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I have no desire to evangelize or demonstrate for others some sort of compatibility.
Then why do you keep bristling at the fact that, at its core, most of Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with Mormon beliefs?
You've made it clear that it isn't good enough for most Christians to define Christianity in terms of adherence to the Nicene Creed but still accept that Mormons call themselves Christians, you actually want them to change that definition. Which is simply impossible without them changing their core beliefs as well.
So if you don't want others to change their fundamental religious beliefs, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
At present in my interactions with Kate specifically, and to the extent you are willing, I would like to understand how Christians define their own core beliefs since there are gaps in my understanding. That is my purpose.
I'm still going to respond to people who want to continue our previous lines of inquiry. But on my end going forward I'd prefer to at least understand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can't speak for Christians in general. Or even Catholics in general except in very broad strokes.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Are we taking into consideration the fact that many Christians (I'm looking at you, Evangelicals) use the word Christian to mean two completely different things and conflate the hell out of them? In one sentence a man might be referred to as a Christian, meaning that he practices a Christian belief system, and then immediately afterward have his Christianity questioned because he doesn't seem to have a "saving faith." They're not really the same thing, but we continue to use the word "Christian" to mean both.
Insofar as Mormons practice a type of Christ-based religion, I don't see how it could be argued that they're not Christian. But ask a random Evangelical and he will probably argue that a Mormon is not a "Christian" because the Mormon hasn't experienced the faith-based Spirit birth as the Bible seems to define it. I'm sure that's insulting, but they say the same thing about Catholics, Lutherans, the Amish, and half of the people they go to church with every Sunday.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* As I mentioned a few times earlier in the thread, Evangelicals are the only ones who are super into telling people they are or aren't Christians. The poll I posted earlier said they were (unsurprisingly) the most likely to say Mormons are not Christian at 49% saying no. Most other groups seem to be pretty cool with "we define our religion this way, but if you call yourself a Christian then I'll call you one too."
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
BB,
I wasn't suggesting you had issues with how God feels about you at all. Nor was I telling you how think/feel.
My personal opinion on the being a part of the body is being connected to a specific church, or in your case, a ward. That's where the most important connection is, at least in my humble opinion. I've never put much stock in the approval of the larger "christian" community.
I'm not trying to tell you how to feel, I'm just asking why it matters to you, not suggesting that it shouldn't. Not making an assumption, just asking a question.
Not all of us "christians" try to exclude everyone.
Please don't see my post as an attack in any way, it was not intended to be hostile.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: *nods* As I mentioned a few times earlier in the thread, Evangelicals are the only ones who are super into telling people they are or aren't Christians. The poll I posted earlier said they were (unsurprisingly) the most likely to say Mormons are not Christian at 49% saying no. Most other groups seem to be pretty cool with "we define our religion this way, but if you call yourself a Christian then I'll call you one too."
I thought there was a chance I'd missed it. Admittedly, I skimmed page 2 because I was away from the Internet most of the time it was being written.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Thanks, Nick.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I wouldn't even need to point out that Christ has no exalted status for [Muslims].
I know that this isn't the focus of the topic for you, BB, but be aware that this isn't the case.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I wouldn't even need to point out that Christ has no exalted status for [Muslims].
I know that this isn't the focus of the topic for you, BB, but be aware that this isn't the case.
Poor choice of word. In Mormonism to be exalted means to become deified.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
They don't believe Jesus is God?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I didn't say that.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm not saying that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I mean, my post was pretty clear. But if you really don't understand what I said, maybe it would be more productive to say "hey Dogbreath, I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain what you mean?" rather than putting words I didn't say in my mouth and then asking why I said them. You've been doing an awful lot of that in this thread, which is especially bizarre since, you know, my posts are right there. If you forgot or misread my posts, you can always just go and reread them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I would not use exalted in the way the link described it to describe Jesus either. Exaltation seems to be something that one can achieve. For mainstream Christian, Jesus didn't achieve God-ness; Jesus is God. One in being with the Father.
I don't know if that is what Dogbreath had in mind but it struck me.
I think that, what it usually comes down to, is that our ideas of what God is are quite different which makes using terms specific to one doctrine not always helpful.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I mean, my post was pretty clear. But if you really don't understand what I said, maybe it would be more productive to say "hey Dogbreath, I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain what you mean?" rather than putting words I didn't say in my mouth and then asking why I said them. You've been doing an awful lot of that in this thread, which is especially bizarre since, you know, my posts are right there. If you forgot or misread my posts, you can always just go and reread them.
I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get at what you are trying to say. Also you joined a response I made to Jake's post. If you are going to say I'm wrong, perhaps do me the courtesy of explaining it instead of saying I'm wrong. I'll refrain from throwing darts and ask you to explain things.
Did we cover this ground about exaltation before? I didn't think one of your earlier posts mentioned it precisely.
Kate:
quote:BB, I would not use exalted in the way the link described it to describe Jesus either. Exaltation seems to be something that one can achieve. For mainstream Christian, Jesus didn't achieve God-ness; Jesus is God. One in being with the Father.
Why does the mechanism matter? I'm talking about exaltation as a state of being God. It's like saying "This is an automobile, it was assembled in a plant", and the response being, "Not this one, it was never created, but has always been an automobile."
OK, but we can safely call them both automobiles, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really. I mean, yes about the cars but the analogy doesn't work. Again, what you and I mean by "god" is so very different. There is only one God. Jesus is not one of many gods or potential gods. God is unique.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get at what you are trying to say. Also you joined a response I made to Jake's post. If you are going to say I'm wrong, perhaps do me the courtesy of explaining it instead of saying I'm wrong. I'll refrain from throwing darts and ask you to explain things.
Did we cover this ground about exaltation before? I didn't think one of your earlier posts mentioned it precisely.
Dude, you responded to the post that mentioned it precisely:
quote:I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
There's no need to "get at what I'm trying to say" - what I'm trying to say is literally what I wrote. There's no hidden message, and there's certainly no need to get pissy about someone explaining something to you. Especially after you specifically said your goal in this conversation was to learn. It should be patently obvious after several pages of conversation on the topic that I'm not saying "most Christians do not believe Jesus is God", so I'm struggling to see your interpretation of my post that way as anything but antagonistic. If there's something about my explanation that doesn't make sense, or something you want further clarification on, then please just show me the respect of asking me.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".
Yes I asked you in effect, "Do not Christians believe Jesus is God?" Because Mormons also believe that thing.
Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.
-------------
Kate:
quote:Not really. I mean, yes about the cars but the analogy doesn't work. Again, what you and I mean by "god" is so very different. There is only one God. Jesus is not one of many gods or potential gods. God is unique.
OK. Would you be willing to describe for me what you think are attributes of God that differ from what I might think? Ignoring the existence of other cars so to speak.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.
This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.
Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.
But outside of the framework you are using, other people believe that Jesus is God, there's no state of exaltation that means being like God, and it makes no sense to use the word exalted as a synonym for being like God.
"Non-Mormons don't think Jesus was exalted" is analogous to "Mormons don't think Jesus was born from the mouth of the turtle that carries the earth". And the response analogous to "So they don't think Jesus is exalted in the sense of being God?" is "So they don't think Jesus existed?"
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.
This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.
Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.
It's also like saying, "Jesus isn't God." to a Mormon.
Look, my original assertion that Jake responded to was that Jesus has no exalted status amongst Muslims. I'm already aware he is revered as a prophet and moral teacher by Muslims, so in that sense he is exalted meaning highly honored and revered. I was only pointing out (And agreed it was a poor choice of words) that when I used exalted I mean being a deity. Muslims absolutely reject Christ's claim to be the son of God or God.
Is that a fair statement to make?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.
Ok. Will try later. Thanks.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".
I asserted that most non-Mormon Christians would not describe Christ using the LDS definition of exaltation, yes. If you wanted to know the difference, you could have saved yourself a whole lot of trouble by just asking "what do you think the difference is?" or something.
That being said, there are a few important differences (I'm basing my definition of exaltation from the earlier link. If you feel that it's misrepresenting the concept, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly):
1) "To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.
2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.
quote:Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.
OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:"To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.
It's not quite as different as you might suppose. For one thing, Mormons don't believe Jesus became like God, though some might infer that. Jesus is described as being with God from the beginning, and his ante-mortal Godship is absolutely affirmed by Mormons. We believe that the God described in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ/Jehovah. He created the Earth, and everything in it. He appeared to the prophets described in the OT, and revealed his law. That in the New Testament he is God come down among men.
Mormonism has no set opinion as to whether Christ was a deity from the beginning or if he became a God at some point in the pre-existence. But his path is certainly different from the rest of us.
quote:2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.
Exaltation as a process and as Mormons understand it, doesn't apply to Jesus. He was God before he was born, and presumably he wasn't married then. Mormons don't have any clue as to whether he was married or had children in mortality. But if he wasn't married, it would not affect our belief that he is God.
How Christ was God having not yet been born or having done many of the things we feel are necessary to become like God is something of which Mormonism has not yet figured out.
quote:OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. [Smile] I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
I think communication styles are definitely at play here. I don't ask Socratic questions, or 20 questions. I *do* frequently ask "Are you saying this?" Because I (And I think most people are this way) are challenged to comprehend what others mean when they say something. My asking "Did you mean this." is me bouncing back what I comprehended as a way to get your OK or correction before proceeding because otherwise I start speaking to the wrong understanding and it makes the conversation worse. I totally get that it frequently comes across as condescending and when I've really misunderstood a person, even offensive.
But I also can't just say I don't understand over and over because people don't want to expound on everything, so I state what I took away from that, in the hopes the person can give me the A-OK or "No, this is what I'm saying."
In our conversation I can see how my question to you about Jesus being God was poorly worded. Obviously Christians believe Jesus is God. I could have asked you to explain rather than what I said.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Thanks, BlackBlade. I really appreciate you. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's not quite as different as you might suppose.
I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I appreciate you too Dogbreath:
quote:I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Whereas I'm trying *not* to focus on the mechanics and just look at the qualities of the end state. Hence my use of the cars analogy. How do you feel the Christian view of God is different from the Mormon concept of deity?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, the fundamental difference I keep mentioning is that for most Christians, one does not become God (or a god), God simply is. I apologize if that isn't a satisfactory answer, and I realize from your perspective the difference may be trivial, but for Christians who are not Mormons, that difference is absolutely essential and lies at the very core of their beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To start with, and probably the most significant is that there is one God. Only one. God is eternal, infinite, ever-present in all of creation (not existing in one specific location) and One. God created everything both matter and non-matter and God created everything out of nothing. There was nothing before God.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*nod* Mainstream Christianity usually doesn't tolerate the idea that God could have become God because the very nature of God is changeless. He wasn't created and He doesn't progress. He is the "I Am." He isn't limited by time and causality; those things exist in this material universe he created for us. Changing, attaining, transitioning...those are things that created beings do. We cannot become like God, at least not in terms of power or knowledge. And those who tried (Lucifer, Adam, Eve) were punished for it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Help me understand how something becoming something has an impact on its current state vs something that was always so. These statement seem to be saying,
1 + 1 + 1 != 3
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
PSI Teleport just explained why in a lot of detail in the post above yours, I really recommend re-reading her post. Specifically, mainstream Christians don't believe God has a "current state". That very idea goes against their fundamental beliefs about the unchanging and timeless nature of God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. One God; three persons. Co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial (of the same being). Not three parts of one god. Not three phases of one God. Definitely not three gods.
As Daniel Webster once noted - when faced with exactly that argument - we, "do not pretend to fully understand the arithmetic of heaven."
Something becoming something has an impact on its current state if a key attribute of its current state is that is is eternal. God is eternal. God was never not God so it is wrong to say that God became God.
[ July 13, 2017, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
What is Christian understanding then for Christ being both God and man, and yet being described in the scriptures as growing in wisdom and stature. Is that too a function of his being born and existing in this world?
What is Christ in terms of being God, in a human body, but...not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fully God and fully man.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
How does that work? Aren't those things mutually exclusive in Christianity?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not for God.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I might veer a little here from mainstream Christianity in the way I think of this. At least, I don't feel comfortable speaking for anyone else. But I have a clear awareness of my brain being flesh, and the thoughts I have as existing because of flesh. I say this because I apply this to my understanding of Jesus as He "grew in wisdom and stature." Growing in wisdom (the mind) and stature (the body) are functions of the flesh He was wearing and don't really have anything to do with the Spirit that inhabited it. This is probably unorthodox because most people believe their thoughts come at least in part from their spirits and I don't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would agree that growing - in body and mind - is part of being incarnate and were part of that experience for Jesus just as being born and dying were.
[ July 14, 2017, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Help me understand the Christian perspective then on God never changing but still being able to become a man and grow as we all do.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
ETA: The following post was written in response to your question before you edited.
Yes. It's not a contradiction. The simplest, and maybe least useful, explanation is that God is omnipotent and we're not. But more specifically God is eternal but He can choose to function as material in the universe He created because He has the power to do whatever He wants. I was created. I have a definite beginning point. (I believe that Mormonism differs here?) I cannot through any amount of effort attain an eternal, omnipotent personhood.
Basically, Blackblade, I can write myself into my own story. But my characters can't jump off the page and start writing stories of their own.
In response to the edited post:
Re: God growing; I don't think most mainstream Christians believe that what happened to Jesus's body while He lived on earth had any impact on His eternal person.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Thanks for your thoughts. So Christ at his birth was fully aware that he was God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps. There aren't a lot of Jesus as a child stories in the Bible before age 12 when He talked with the elders. Maybe He wasn't, with a baby brain, able to articulate that? It isn't like He was a magic baby; He was a real human child. How much could a real, human child know and express?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wasn't he also fully God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. Welcome to the mystery. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
God chose to interface with us through a limited human experience. That didn't mean He lost all access to His real power.
It's like if I chose to Skype with you even though you were sitting in my living room. I can't reach out and touch you because I'm obeying the limitations I've placed on myself. But if I wanted to "break the rules," then yes, I could.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not really a mystery if it's outright nonsensical, you know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So reading this, I had a question. It says that Christ's humanity is now a permanent part of being God. And that he exists as a glorified man, but also God.
I was under the impression that Christians view God as not having a body?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
God in the person of the Creator (Father) does not. Nor in the person of the Holy Spirit. God in the person of Christ did. Still? Depends on who you ask. Honestly, I don't give a lot of thought to the resurrection of the body but I suppose that resurrected body is something Jesus may still inhabit. There are scriptural arguments for this. Philippians " But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." First Corinthians 15 talks about the difference between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
But, I imagine, the "rules" for imperishable, glorified bodies that live in eternity are different from earthly bodies.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't know how much consensus there is on that one. The Church my grandfather attended believed in the Resurrection of the Dead so literally that they forbid members to be cremated as (for whatever reason, I never got an answer that made sense) they believed a cremated body couldn't be resurrected. The Baptist Church I grew up in believed the Resurrection of the Dead was a metaphor for an entirely new state of being, not a literal physical body as we know it. I'm not really sure how Catholics interpret it.
I think for a lot of Christians, those sort of topics are generally vague and not well defined by doctrine, and even when they are defined a certain way by a certain denomination, they aren't discussed much. I think it's one of those areas where there isn't really an analog between Mormon and non-Mormon beliefs, because it's something LDS focus on and have more revelation about than non-Mormons. Whereas I think most Christians wouldn't have what you would consider a detailed explanation of what happens after they die - beyond "going to heaven to be with God" it's mostly a mystery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?
Generally, yes. But there is little consensus about what that means. What we would recognize as a human body? Maybe? A body that we would recognize as ours? Maybe? Something we can't even imagine till we enter eternal life? I think that's the most probable.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
So is the body Christ appeared with to all those various people (And let them touch) after having left the tomb is a resurrected body, but it's not necessarily that permanent shape?
Like when Christ appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus he may or may not have appeared as a human shape?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah. That's certainly possible, I guess?
If you look at the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:
quote: And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
It's still mostly humanoid there. But in Ezekiel chapter 1 (the enormous wheel in the middle of the wheel in the sky, covered in four faces and thousands of eyes, with flame shooting out of it), makes him out to be some sort of Eldrich abomination. I would say that to assume either author is describing what Jesus actually looks like is a mistake, because it would probably be a mistake to say that his heavenly body can adequately be described using our senses or brains.
Again, I want to drive home the point that these are things that are not very well defined or agreed upon by most Christians, and aren't talked about much. They just don't have the same meaning or importance to us as they do to Mormons. I don't think you're going to find an adequate answer to your questions, because for a lot of them there isn't really an answer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or at least not an answer that we can wrap our heads around now.
I don't mind that other Christians think the answers are less defined than Mormonism. I'm asking these questions so as to gauge how orthodox Christians see them. If the answers is, "Our senses are inadequate to suss that out." well that's fine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We don't all have the same answers or even answers at all.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Does this asking questions then seem not a very efficacious exercise?
Would it be better if I did my own research elsewhere?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Asking questions is fine. So is doing research. But what you will find is that the answers to specifics of Jesus's body post-Resurrection and post-Ascension are going to be as varied and vague as "what happens after we die". No one really knows. If you research and find people who are sure of the specifics, I would be inclined to take whatever they say with a load of salt.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I guess I feel like, "We don't know" is fine particularly in the context of myself where I thought some pretty complex ideas (pre-existence) were generally accepted. So knowing there's even strong disagreement on resurrection for example is still helpful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well not on Jesus's resurrection itself or on the resurrection of the body (our bodies) in general. I mean, we definitely believe in those things as a rule. It is just the specifics* that are vague.
*What did/does Jesus's glorified body look like? What will our bodies be like?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
So for other Christians at what point is our soul and/or spirit created?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anytime between conception and birth, I suppose. Whether one's soul comes from one's parents (traducianism) or is created by God in the moment is not determined. The Roman Catholic Church generally goes with the latter.
Posted by Probot 2.0 (Member # 14146) on :
01000100 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 01110100
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
I don't know so much about its relevance to the nature of God, existence, or the soul, but bots like the above are surely proof of the Devil of Hell.
Or perhaps not. After all, if the bot hadn't dredged up this conversation from 2-3 years prior, I never would have stumbled across it, and never would have read it either. That was a remarkably beautiful conversation and I think it ended in a good place.
For the record, kmbboots, Dogbreath, PSI Teleport, and others--JanitorBlade's experiences, explanations, assumptions, narratives, and reactions are not unique to his experience with the Church, as presented and examined here. I've been a member of the Church all my life and the assumptions that fed into this conversation--including details about evangelical hostility, the place of the Church in a global context, the nature of deity, the frustrations with creeds, and so on--are not just his interpretations of things. They are institutionalized. They are the cultural narrative of the Church.
Really, trying to talk some members of the Church out of this narrative and into a more open or accepting place is usually as difficult as this conversation shows. According to the historical narrative of the Church, we are hated by most other Christians. We are (presumably) not considered Christian by most, and this is one of the Church membership's major grievances. There is a large victim narrative that is core to much of the Church's development and growth, though I think a lot of its contemporary prevalence is the fault of members, not the fault of the institution. The Church has, in recent years, done a lot more interfaith outreach than in decades past. But the cultural narrative that we are social outcasts still holds strong.
For many with a Utah heritage, that narrative is a part of the legacy of the first generation. Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo--we ran two thousand miles across the country just to find a place to settle unhindered. We were forced to give up polygamy by an encroaching United States. We are inundated by a godless and secular culture that eats away at our membership. And so on.
It's not necessarily framed in those exact terms, but that is often the takeaway.
It is hard to view the faith outside of these narratives. It is certainly possible, but hard. A lot of the core membership reinforces them by default. Anecdotal experience from the mission is difficult to work past. (I served in Pennsylvania, where I encountered a lot of evangelical hatred for the Church.) Sunday School discussions often frame us against 'the world,' which really just means everyone who is not us. I agree with that to some extent--we are not the world. We are a 'peculiar people.' It's part of our identity as members of the Church. We certainly can be strange at times and we don't quite realize how deeply removed we are from other religions or religious heritages.
Anyway. I don't have a lot more to add. I'm glad to see that the conversation resolved for the most part. (I realize that I'm speaking a couple years after the fact.) I am not by any means attempting to speak for all members, or even for JanitorBlade here. But his assumptions and narratives have been my assumptions and narratives in the past. Breaking free of those cultural blinders took a long time, and required deliberate effort. I would guess that many members deal with the same things.
Just so you know.
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)