posted
kat, I didn't say a splinter from Protestants. Just Christianity. Y'all are Christians, right? The followers of Christ became Catholics (apparently Cathol was a better speaker than Jesus) and then Martin Luther decided he'd had enough of that. Henry the 8th wanted to divorce so he created his own church (the hobbbist Church of England) (tea and cake or death!) Obviously somewhere in there, LDS came about.
quote: The Mormons have had a fascinating and turbulent history. Its founder was Joseph Smith (1805-1844), a resident of Palmyra NY. His family of origin were called "Seekers" - Christians who were not affiliated with a church, but which respected the teachings of all denominations. In his teens, his mother and most of the rest of the family converted to Presbyterianism.
quote:The Mormons have had a fascinating and turbulent history. Its founder was Joseph Smith (1805-1844), a resident of Palmyra NY. His family of origin were called "Seekers" - Christians who were not affiliated with a church, but which respected the teachings of all denominations. In his teens, his mother and most of the rest of the family converted to Presbyterianism.
Yes, that's right.
Splinter still doesn't work, though. I mean, you can say its a subset of Christianity. That works. But splinter means it broke off somewhere... there was no breaking off. Joseph Smith acting under the direction of the Lord.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes, well, nevermind. You answered the question.
But, I still think that LDS is a splinter of other forms of Christianity. Otherwise, there'd have been no reform necessary. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think being considered a "splinter" group is an insult, really. Why did you take it that way?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is a restoration." Ah, that makes so much sense! I didn't know that.
Kayla, the Eastern Orthodox Church would not be Priotestant either, right? They did not split off after Luther, but way, way before(about 400 AD from memory, when Justinian changed the seat of the Roman Empire to Constantinople.)(Or was that Constantine?)
Anyway, thanks Katharina, that makes so much more sense to me now.
posted
I'm confused about this whole splinter thing, though actually my confusion has been coming a long time. I'm probably going to be offensive, but I'm honestly not trying to be, I'm just confused.
Why do Mormons identify themselves as Christians when they deny that they can be indetified with other Christians? For instance, I'm Christian, specifically I'm reformed and evangelical; my church would be part of the PCA; So I'm generally part of that denomination, however, I still recognize other denominations as having authority from God. The Mormon church, from what I know of it, doesn't do that; so why does the church affiliate themselves with a group that they don't recognize as being legitimate?
I repeat, I'm really really sorry if this is offensive, I honestly don't mean to be; and I don't think I'm being bigoted or hypocritical either; I hope I'm not. I've just been confused about this for a while, and I thought this seemed like a good time to ask.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Great Schism between the West and East was a long time in coming. The pope in the West asserted primacy because it was in Rome that St. Peter was buried - an "apostolic" primacy. The patriarch in Constantinople asserted primacy based on the fact that it was there that the seat of Roman government now existed - a "pragmatic" primacy. For a long time, tensions between the two were resolved in peacefully in councils - for example, the Iconoclastic Controversy.
In 1014, however, irreconcilable differences arose over the word filoque, which means "and from the Son" - the standard Christian creed in the West was rendered to read "I believe ... in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son, " which church leaders of the East regarded as heretical. The reason why the difference was irreconcilable was the different ways approached the issue: in the West the popes considered themselves the ultimate judges in matters of faith and doctrine, but in the East leaders followed the authority of councils where the local churches spoke as equals.
quote: Disagreements continues to strain relations, and some - like the filoque problem - were never really resolved. Matters came to a head by 1052 when Norman rulers insisted that Greek churches in Italy conform to standard Latin practices. The patriarch of the Greek church in turn demanded that Latin churches in Constantinople conform to Greek customs. When he was refused, he simply had them closed.
Because the issue could not be resolved in 1054, that is the year usually given for the final break between East and West. However, the two regions remained on very good terms and there was always hope that some sort of reconciliation could be achieved. Those hopes were, however, finally dashed in 1204 when soldiers in the Fourth Crusade entered and sacked Constantinople.
Kat, if it's any better, I used a poor word choice. Instead of splinter, would fork in the road be better? Easter Orthodox and Western Catholicism seems to be more what I was talking about. And Western Catholicsism to Protestants. I guess coming up with an entirely new (yet old) religion doesn't really have anything to compare. Though, being as he was brough up as a non-denomination Protestant, I still think he's a fork in that road.
posted
Hey, a huge section of my post disappeared! (found it!)
Elizabeth, no. I don't think so. I mean, they were basically founded about the same time, right? They just had a couple of disagreements. They both believe they are Catholic. Though, I would guess, that anyone who split from the Western Catholic Church in protest would be considered a Protestant, huh?
quote:Why do Mormons identify themselves as Christians when they deny that they can be indetified with other Christians?
This depends on how you define a Christian. Naming is a powerful act, and since religion is so important, I'm generally for letting people name themselves. The simplest definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ, who believes that he is the Son of God (this disqualifies Muslims) and died in an act of redemption.
quote:For instance, I'm Christian, specifically I'm reformed and evangelical; my church would be part of the PCA; So I'm generally part of that denomination,
Saying you're a reformed Christian adds some qualifiers to it. Reformed from what? Whatever qualifications are added, LDS aren't a part of that.
quote: however, I still recognize other denominations as having authority from God. The Mormon church, from what I know of it, doesn't do that; so why does the church affiliate themselves with a group that they don't recognize as being legitimate?
Because when someone says they are a follower of Christ, they would know. It's best to believe them.
If you are meaning the authority from God, to me that means the priesthood. You can be a good person, a follower of Christ, and even acting on inpiration from the Lord, but that isn't the same thing as having the priesthood.
Kayla:
quote:Instead of splinter, would fork in the road be better?
I don't think fork works either, because that means you're still on the same road - that the LDS came from something that never left the ground. It's more like apparating.
The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority. All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
Leading congregations of the Church
Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
Blessing those who are sick
God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
It's the authority of God, and its under this authority that the leaders run the church here on earth.
quote: Leading congregations of the Church Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism Blessing those who are sick God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
But pastors and ministers in most Protestant churches do all of these things. I get the feeling they don't have the preisthood though?
Thanks for being patient, I'm sometimes (ok, most of the time) slow about things like this.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, what Katharina is describing is exactly what a splinter group is...
A group that believes something that had never been believed before, within a larger group, is a splinter.
Just because you describe yourself as the continuation of the "True christian church" does not mean you did not "split off" from the rest of christianity in the 1800's.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
When I was in Michigan, we were in a small town, and a Methodist minister and his wife called us to come tell them about the church. Things went great all the way up to the third discussion. In fact, the wife wanted me to meet/marry her son. Then we hit the third discussion, where we talk about the restoration of the priesthood.
It didn't go well. They didn't like us nearly as much after that.
"Splinter Group, n. A small organization that becomes seperated from an original larger group."
Ok, so we've got two different definitions.
Yours is "2 : a group or faction broken away from a parent body"
Well, you're a group or faction of the parent body Christianity, and you broke away from that parent body in the 1800's.
Theologically, you believe that you're a restoration of Jesus' original church. Fine. But UNTIL the 1800's, there were no people who accepted that belief. At which point, a number of people from OTHER splinter groups of christianity to join the newest splinter group.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, maybe he's saying its a splinter group because most of the early members were members of a different church before they joined.
It's the only explanation I can think of. It doesn't make any sense, though. Does that mean the converts from another church are a splinter group, but those that were atheists before aren't?
posted
A group of people, vaguely associated with another group, start something new.
"Splinter" or "Restoration" all sort of depends on whether an individualn thinks Joseph Smith was a prophet or a loony.
So, I don't see this being resolved until all posters convert to LDS. Or, you know, whatever the reverse is.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* You're exactly right, Olivet. Persistently calling LDS a splinter group is saying "Joseph Smith is a loony."
That hardly seems polite. Setting aside origins, LDS can safely be called a subset of Christianity. Will that work for everyone?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm cool with that, but I'm not really part of whatever bruhaha started the 'splinter' question. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering why it was important to Paul that it WAS a splinter group. I never got a vibe like that from him before.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) I do not think Joseph Smith was a loony. A founder of a splinter group of ANYTHING isn't necessarily a loony. There is a splinter group of baseball scounts who believe that the traditional "tools" method of evaluation of players leaves a lot to be desired. They have fragmented themselves from the more "Traditional" scouts, and, in my mind, created a more logical, effective, and efficient manner of evaluated baseball players. Billy Beane has done wonders with the new method of baseball evaluation, for example. "Splinter" does not mean worse, better, crazy, or anything else. It means "a fragment of," essentially.
2) This wasn't really important to me, until after my second post on this thread, which was as follows...
"*Tries to figure out whether he wants to get into this argument more deeply*"
I wasn't certain how important this was to Katharina, but, since that post, it has become clear that this is VERY important to her. For some reason, being told that her religion seperated from christianity is very offensive to her.
Using her simple definition of Christian "This depends on how you define a Christian. Naming is a powerful act, and since religion is so important, I'm generally for letting people name themselves. The simplest definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ, who believes that he is the Son of God (this disqualifies Muslims) and died in an act of redemption. "
I think that qualifies all members of the church of latter day saints as christians.
Whats bugging me, and why this became important was, Katharine proceeded down a path that is accusing many OTHER people of being inferior.
"They needed it in order to baptize one another, and to organize the restored church. Other people do it, and it is a meaningful act, but it isn't done with the authority of God."
As Kayla stated, many people would disagree with that assesment.
At this point, it became clear to me that what Katharina is doing is not trying to clear up a misunderstanding, but is preserving her belief that other Christians are not worthy of... something. She specifies it as not receiving the priesthood. I think something deeper is going on.
3) I was charged with not seeing Katharina's definition of splinter.
A careful reading of my post indicates that, in fact, I had seen it, and was providing a slightly different defition, as well as quoting her definition. Both definitions talk about a group seperating from an original group.
$) Anyrate, Katharina then accused me of saying two things I didn't say
1) That LDS are not Christians. In fact, this is the opposite of what I said.
2) That LDS split from a church. THis is not what I said. I said LDS split from "mainstream christianity," or, to be a little more precise, created another specific sect of christianity within the umbrella of christendom.
Christianity is NOT a church. It is a broad religious category that includes many sects.
Mormonism is a sect that was created much later then many other Christian sects, and earlier then many others. 10 years before Joseph Smith was born, it is fair to say that no people anywhere on earth held the beliefs that would come to be LDS doctrine, and now define the sect as seperate from other Christien sects.
Putting this all together...
Whats important to me, in this portion of the thread, is historical accuracy. Its fine to believe that your religion is superior... after all, if you belong to a religion, you believe it is correct. Anything that is correct is superior to something of the same category that is incorrect.
However, even if we assume that Katharina's beliefs concerning her religion are true, the historical fact is that, until the early 1800's, her church did not exist. It is, however, a Christian church, in that it recognizes Jesus Christ as the Son of God (and if we use her defintion, his death was an act of redemption). If we assume Christianity is an umbrella under which many religions exist (somthing I don't think is disputable) then the Church of Latter Day Saints is a splinter of Christianity. It is a Church formed from a group of people who believed that the teachings of Joseph Smith more closely aligned with the Truth then anything that previously existed, left their churches, and created something that had not been seen on this Earth at any other time in history.
The Crux of this issue is, as far as I see it, that Katharina refuses to acknowledge that her Church is a subset of Christianity that has broken away from other Christian sects. If she acknowledges that, then she's acknowledging that her religion is a splinter group of christianity.
What I can't figure out is, what other possibility there is that makes any sense. The only possibility I see, and this doesn't make any sense, is that the REST of Christianity has broken away from the Church of Latter Day Saints.
To reiterate an important point: Just because something is a splinter does not make it inferior, or crazy.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Paul for summing up my feelings on this. Either LDS are Christians, or they aren't.
And as they claim to be Christian, then they would have to be a splinter of Christianity (which as you say is not a church per se).
There's a lot of issues here, some of which I won't go into because it will offend my LDS friends. Much as we like to dance around the issue and pretend there is no bad blood - fact is that mormons and protestants don't usually get along very swimmingly when we start discussing the differences in our doctrines. Just too many differences, and the differences are almost always those that will fire people up - "Well, your belief isn't as good as ours, here's the scripture to prove it." "Oh yeah? Well, here's the scripture that proves YOU'RE wrong!! How you like them apples?" I've done it before and it's very draining.
Getting into discussions that are bound to get folks involved emotionally is probably not a good idea. At least not for me, as I don't want to get emotional in a thread again, it takes too much out of me. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I want to add that I don't think being a splinter is a bad thing. And I'm not trying in my post to say LDS are not Christians, I realize it may look that way on first reading. Not my intention.
I agree with the definition kat gave of a Christian, they come in all kinds of denominations and with all kinds of doctrines. I'm not one of the hard core Baptists who think Catholics aren't Christian and are headed for hell.
I better make that clear or Mack will thump me with her stick. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And as they claim to be Christian, then they would have to be a splinter of Christianity (which as you say is not a church per se)."
From Katharina's explanation earlier, which was news to me, it seems that Joseph Smith did not splinter from, but went back to, something. (the retro term) To me, it seems more like a rewinding of the tape, and starting back at an earlier point.
I am definitely still in the midst of my paradigm shift. Growing up as a baptized Catholic who went to a Methodist church, I still got the feeling that there were Catholics, and there were moved-away-from-Catholics. Any nonCatholic Christian group would be a Protestant sect, in my mind.
It is sort of like roots music. If a musician is into reggae, but then goes back to performing ska, the root of reggae, they are not really moving away from reggae, they are going back to an earlier, purer, form of it.
I can see how the "splinter" analogy would rankle.
posted
I might thump you anyway, just for posterity, Belle.
Paul did a good job of summing up my thoughts on the issue. (Paul, get out of my head!o_O)
Kat says that other Christian churches may believe in Christ and do things in his name, which are all well and good, but act without 1. the authority of god or 2. have the priesthood. Or is that the same thing? I think she did say that it was.
*raises eyebrow*
Jesus chose the apostles before his death and resurrection that make him the Christ. After he is Risen, he comissions the apostles. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is given to the Apostles. All Christian then receieve the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost marks the formation of the Church.
Did we blink and miss the authority from God? the power of binding and loosing that was given first to Peter and then to the other apostles?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a member of the churches of Christ, I have a little something to say about the use of "splinter groups" as a descriptor. From a technical sociological standpoint it may be true (both of us and of the LDS). However, neither of us consider it theologically true of ourselves (each other is another matter), as we each consider ourselves to be a re-creation of the original church, not a derivative of some other group.
Moreover, the term "splinter" implies something of minimal importance--a tiny fragment not really deserving of recognition--or an unwarranted fracture. I get irate when people claim that the churches of Christ are made up entirely of "little splinter groups", because it suggests either that we are not important or that we divide over issues we ought to know are not important. It may not be in the dictionary, but it's a real connotation nonetheless.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also church of Christ and while I understand essentially what Maccabeus is saying, I think that our church :cough:denomination:cough: has a lot of mildly delusional stances. Not the least of which is the contention that we are neither protestant nor a denomination . . . .
I won't tell you my current feelings on our goal of restoration, either, just now since I feel it unwise to spark a debate in the middle of this thread with another c of C'er. We divide too much as it is already.
posted
"Moreover, the term "splinter" implies something of minimal importance--a tiny fragment not really deserving of recognition--or an unwarranted fracture. I get irate when people claim that the churches of Christ are made up entirely of "little splinter groups", because it suggests either that we are not important or that we divide over issues we ought to know are not important. It may not be in the dictionary, but it's a real connotation nonetheless. "
I've never heard of this connotation.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Y'all are Christians, right? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The followers of Christ became Catholics (apparently Cathol was a better speaker than Jesus) and then Martin Luther decided he'd had enough of that. Henry the 8th wanted to divorce ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
so he created his own church (the hobbbist Church of England) (tea and cake or death!) Obviously somewhere in there, LDS came about.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
