My experience agrees with yours. I was thinking more of the word "founding" than "prophet."
In my initial, unposted, post, I wrote how my grandmother for the longest time believed we worshipped Joseph Smith on par with Christ, and how my initial reaction to lem's post would kind of confirm that, since I was saying Joseph Smith was the founder of OUR religion and Jesus Christ was the founder of that OTHER religion...
posted
Olivet: God's reasoning is laid out as thus,
"The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question...The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency (Prophet and his councelors) and Twelve (The Twelve Apostles) and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. . . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . . "
IMO and YMMV there was no expediency to practice polygamy as it was not nearly as essential as say temple ordinances. But again if the Lord had said nothing about leaving polygamy behind I believe president Woodruff's claim that he would have allowed all those terrible things he saw in vision to occur.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They both have a reverence for their founding prophet in a way not seen in other religions.
I saw this and thought, "Wait a second. What about Jesus?"
But I get your point.
Heh. That was exactly my initial reaction as well.
In my experience the word "prophet" is not generally applied to Jesus by the majority of Christian denominations.
Sorry for double posting, but I agree DKW it is not. Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
posted
"Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?"
Hmm. Not sure what you mean by "with propriety."
I think he certainly exercised many prophetic functions during his earthly life, so no, I don't think it would be improper to refer to him as a prophet. But I would say the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, and a whole host of other people.
I think part of the disconnect is that non-Mormon Christians don't have the same reference of "prophet" as a leadership role that Mormons do. Certainly Moses would be a strong counter example, but many would tend to think first of prophets like Amos that were critical of the power structure, not part of it. So the idea of a "founding prophet" just doesn't ring a bell.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:On Topic: It doesn't seem FAIR to expect Romney to be an apologist for his religion (that is to have to explain it to those outside) but it would be beneficial to his cause (I think) if he could pull it off without seeming shrill or nutty.
I don't think he should be an apologist for his religion. I never liked that word...apologist. It makes it seem like the religion is false and you have to apologize for believing it. I really thought "apologist" was a derogatory title, until I saw Mormon researches apply it to themselves.
Anyway, I think he should be confronted on a specific covenant he made and explain how he interprets it personally.
quote: What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
Mormon. (exasperated) Whatever.
Since you have made it clear you think my posts in this thread are "anti," I have to ask if this is in reference to me? If it is me, please give me an example where I corrected what other people believe despite their corrections.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it is about Bokonon and Ron Lambert, although the latter hasn't chimed in yet as to what we have said. Past experience has proven, to me, he would follow the pattern given. Your persistance in having us answer a question we have already answered does come close to this.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly, Calvin identified 'prophet' as one of Christ's three defining roles.
I agree, though, Dana, that Mormons tend to use the term 'prophet' loosely to describe the president of the church even though it's properly only one of the roles ascribed to him. Strictly speaking Mormons believe that in Joseph Smith the roles of prophet and priest were combined - he combined the call to repentance with the authority to perform ordinances.
For what it's worth, lem, I don't think you've been 'anti' here. I think 'anti-Mormon' in general is an overused term, and if Mormons are going to have productive conversations with those of other faiths in a non-proselyting sense, we're going to have to learn to follow the Catholic example and show patience instead of indignance every time our faith is mischaracterized.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
Mormon. (exasperated) Whatever.
Isn't this thread a strong example of there being evidence that 'Mormons' are taught different things, if not perceive what they are taught differently, and that not all Mormons view things the same?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm not only that, but replace "Mormon" with "Protestant" and you also have a correct statement, in my experience.
I am sometimes amazed at what my kids come home from Sunday School saying - we have Sunday School teachers who will teach lessons that are not part of our stated doctrine. Like once my daughter told me only those people who are baptised by full immersion have had a "correct" baptism because that's what her teacher told her. She was upset because she was baptised as an infant by sprinkling. Our church believes baptism can be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, it's really not an issue to us which exact method is used.
Needless to say, I reported that teacher to the head of our Christian Education department. But definitely, I agree that not everyone will perceive things the same way even if they've been raised in the same church under what are ostensibly the same beliefs.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Storm not only that, but replace "Mormon" with "Protestant" and you also have a correct statement, in my experience.
I am sometimes amazed at what my kids come home from Sunday School saying - we have Sunday School teachers who will teach lessons that are not part of our stated doctrine. Like once my daughter told me only those people who are baptised by full immersion have had a "correct" baptism because that's what her teacher told her. She was upset because she was baptised as an infant by sprinkling. Our church believes baptism can be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, it's really not an issue to us which exact method is used.
Needless to say, I reported that teacher to the head of our Christian Education department. But definitely, I agree that not everyone will perceive things the same way even if they've been raised in the same church under what are ostensibly the same beliefs.
Right. Wasn't trying to say it was just Mormons.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I have never heard the term apologist used derisively, so that is a new one on me. I did not intend to offend with my word choice. I just meant that he is, at best, uniquely placed to set things straight, if he should choose to do so. I don't think it is his duty by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I certain it would help his campaign.
Not that I really care one way or another, mind you.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno-- I haven't seen any of the practicing Mormons on this thread disagreeing with me.
But that may have more to do with my reputation as a knuckle dragging, belligerent, vengeful psychopath than the validity of my arguments.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Saxon: While you will find disagreements on a variety of subjects even amongst Mormons there is still a feeling of agreement to a large extent.
To use Belle's example, you would be VERY hard pressed to find any group of Mormons arguing about how the ordinance of baptism ought to be performed. Ordinances are basically spelled out in the scriptures and are pretty inflexible.
So you might find Republicans and Democrats amongst Mormons or you might find Mormons disagreeing on the details of the second coming. Yet, questions about say the nature of God, the trinity, what is canon, etc there is not much room for debate compared to other sects.
My brother and I were discussing the differences in how our mission presidents ran their missions and my brother said that since his mission president had been called to be a "Seventy"(an upper tier of church leadership) after being released as a mission president, that God clearly agreed his take on things. This turned into a debate about whether callings to leadership positions validate doctrine. On this point I bet Mormons could disagree and argue. But I am willing to bet that if you attended your average Mormon chapel you would find the majority of what is taught to be virtually identical across the board.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference Belle is that, more than likely, when you correct someone on a belief they will acknowledge that is something they didn't know and will change their opinion. However, more than not when a Mormon does the same thing they are accused of "lying," or "hiding the truth" or some other show of lack of accepting the answer.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I dunno-- I haven't seen any of the practicing Mormons on this thread disagreeing with me.
But that may have more to do with my reputation as a knuckle dragging, belligerent, vengeful psychopath than the validity of my arguments.
Scott, that's true, but it seems like every time there's a thread on this forum about Mormon beliefs, it turns into a back and forth about what is authoritative, true ,whatev. The whole rated R thing is one example, the caffeine/hot drinks one is another. The bit recently between Puppy and Rabbit is another. There's also the fact that there are apparently splinter groups wandering around who consider themselves 'real' Mormons who still believe polygamy is valid. Civil unions are another example. Abortion is another example.
Considering all of this, I don't think qualifying your statement to exclude ex-Mormons holds a lot of water and is a little rude to lem, but it's no biggie to me. My purpose isn't to excuse Mormon bashing so much as it is to point out that it's quite possible for people to believe different things about Mormons, because 'Mormons' themselves are, to some degree, different in their beliefs.
I am not saying that there aren't things that the majority of Mormons believe. I'm in no position to really state what y'all believe definitively. I'm just saying that I've observed a lot of disagreement between Mormons on this forum on religious matters. I think this is a good thing.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm in no position to really state what y'all believe definitively"
Hey, I think this is great. Too bad there are so many people who (not necessarily on Hatrack) think they know EXACTLY what Mormons believe even when confronted by the differences.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, when I suggested there were many similarities between Mormons and Moslems, I did so tongue-in-cheek. But Kat, you need to understand that if you are not totally straightforward, and are employing an artful dodge or two, then saying you are dissembling is fair, and it is not the same thing as calling you a liar. Most people tend to try to present their religion in the best light, but it is easy to go too far in dismissing the negatives and become a PR hack rather than a real apologist (witness) for the faith. Then you are dissembling, and it is fair to say so.
The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is and always was God, equal to God the Father. As Jesus said of Himself in Revelation 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Also John testified of Jesus, the Word, at the beginning of his gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:1-3; see v. 14 to confirm that this "Word" being spoken of is Jesus Christ.)
Since this is the single most important difference in the theology of Mormons vs. other Christians, I cannot just let it go when Kat tries to give the impression that Mormons teach pretty much the same things that other Christians do on the nature of Christ. Maybe Mormons do not think that their differences in this area matter much, but other Christians most certainly do.
I am not being judgmental in this; I am just insisting that we be completely factual.
And I do not care for being called a liar, when I was entirely truthful in what I said. We may be speaking from different viewpoints, where certain theological terms (like Divine Son of God) mean something distinctly different. But when you know most other Christians mean something different than you do, it is incumbent upon you to explain how you are defining the terms differently. To not do so, and then claim you believe the same thing, is dissembling.
And it is an historical fact that Mormons at one time taught that God approved of polygamy. You may shout as loud as you want that Mormons no longer advocate polygamy; the fact remains that you only changed because the feds kept cracking down on you. You may say you changed because your official elected prophet told you God changed His mind, but this does not get Mormons off the hook with the rest of us over this issue. If this admittedly morally corrupt society were to reach the point where it approved of all forms of marriage including polygamy, how much you want to bet the official Mormon prophet would say it is OK to go back to the church's earlier teaching on this? You may think this is being cynical. I see it as realistic. I would even dare to say that my own church, if given enough time, would become just as authoritarian and tradition-exalting as the Roman Catholic church. This is just the way sinful human beings are, especially when they are attempting to be religious.
It was not my intent to give offense. But neither will I back down, unless you convince me that I should.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm, I don't know if I should be happy he proved my point or correct him on the many false ideas he spouted about Mormonism.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I cannot just let it go when Kat tries to give the impression that Mormons teach pretty much the same things that other Christians do on the nature of Christ.
Kat did not claim that Mormons believe the same thing about the nature of Christ and God as traditional Christians. She did say that YOUR explanation of what it is Mormons believe was wrong.
And she's right - "[Christ] is the fully divine Son of God" is certainly something that can be said about the beliefs of traditional Christians, but you left out the part that actually differentiates our beliefs from Mormon beliefs ("eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.") (You did say this in your later post, but not in the one Kat took exception to.) Lacking that additional qualifier, Kat's exception to your post was accurate, not dissembling.
This is especially true when you try to conflate the LDS conception of Christ with the Islamic conception of Jesus. Islam utterly rejects any conception that Jesus was involved in an atonement or played a sacrificial role.
I certainly agree that the LDS conception of Christ is fundamentally incompatible with the Nicene Creed's conception. I don't think that Kat asserted otherwise, and for you to accuse her of doing so is inaccurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: I think the point of contention is that Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the only savior of humankind, and we accept his teachings as God's truth. We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian. At least in the literal German meaning of the word (Friend in Christ.) It seems to me you are suggesting that because we disagree on the nature of God and Jesus that therefore Mormons are not Christian. Fair enough.
It gets alittle shady though.
Mormons believe Jesus did indeed create the heavens and the earth. We believe he is the "God of the Old Testament."
We feel that Jesus justifies OUR view of the trinity so are we not appealing to the same authority, the scriptures?
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."(emphasis added)
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"
We believe Jesus clearly describes himself as separate from, "The Father." Or does having a greater number of people agree with you validate a belief?
I'm not attempting to get into a bible thumping session though I admit I certainly look like it. I'm just trying to point out that for Mormons we appeal to the word of God (the God we both believe in) as evidence of our beliefs.
I agree however that it is misleading to simply say, "Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, they all really believe in the same Jesus so lets group them all together.
At the same time I think simply saying, "Mormons are Christians but they are not protestant or catholic is sufficient to articulate the differences. Sunni and Shiite Muslims all call each other "apostates" and "not really Muslim" and I think this too is inaccurate.
quote:You may shout as loud as you want that Mormons no longer advocate polygamy; the fact remains that you only changed because the feds kept cracking down on you. You may say you changed because your official elected prophet told you God changed His mind, but this does not get Mormons off the hook with the rest of us over this issue
Sounds alot like a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, hmmm?
quote:If this admittedly morally corrupt society were to reach the point where it approved of all forms of marriage including polygamy, how much you want to bet the official Mormon prophet would say it is OK to go back to the church's earlier teaching on this?
If that is God's will. I'd wager you really do not understand how polygamy operated when we did practice it. Cynical? Why would we as Mormons condemn a commandment that God himself gave us? We merely strongly disagree with those who say, "God never said to stop polygamy, Wilford Woodruff was a false prophet when he gave that revelation."
Hypothetically if Jesus comes again and says that his kingdom allows for polygamy would you accept that or would you continue to believe its evil? Purely hypothetical.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. I think having one of the apostles in that high of a governmental position would have been far more risky than having a president who happens to be LDS.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.
I did quote him. Does that count for anything? president Benson was also convinced that the John Birch Society was the most effective non-church organization in the fight against Socialism and godless Communism.
As a Secretary of Agriculture he had the presidents ear, but he did not have the access to the majority of world leaders or have the power to veto.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron: I think the point of contention is that Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the only savior of humankind, and we accept his teachings as God's truth. We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian. At least in the literal German meaning of the word (Friend in Christ.) It seems to me you are suggesting that because we disagree on the nature of God and Jesus that therefore Mormons are not Christian. Fair enough.
BlackBlade, I think by that definition Mormons are Christian. That's a definition I use sometimes. But there's another definition - one that is over a thousand years old - under which Mormons are not Christian. Sometimes I use one definition, sometimes the other. I am talking about two different concepts when I do so. And Mormons do not belong to one of those concepts.
"We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian" is fine - I agree with it with respect to one definition. But the other definition contains some stuff that is very important to us. We see the lack of belief in the portion of the creed I quoted as grounds enough to disqualify you as Christians under the creed-based definition. There are a host of situations where the distinction is important.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I can appreciate that, I really can. But you can see how Mormons would have errrmm.... a lesser degree of respect for a document crafted by men that arrived at its conclusion through a democratic process rather then a document that God himself dictated through a man He Himself selected.
If Mormons applied the same logic to the creed that you do, then Mormons must reject Catholics, Protestants, and all other splinters that adhere to the creed as non-Christians. I do not feel that this is particularly productive in any respect.
But could you perhaps elaborate on these "situations" you mentioned where this is important? I would be much obliged, you seem like a very reasonable person, and it's not as if I believe there is no way you could have good reasons for holding on to this distinction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
While this may for various people range anywhere from an interesting intellectual exercise to the ultimate point of contention in religion today, it should be remembered that according to the owners of this site, the more encompassing definition of Christian, which includes Latter-Day Saints, is the one they consider appropriate for this forum. [Edit -- this is not to say it might not be considered and discussed in the theoretical here, but maybe treading lightly is a good call.]
posted
BB - you're erecting something of a strawman there in regards to the Nicean creed. It's important to remember that most creedal Christians do in fact believe that divine authority had something to do with the production of the traditional creeds. Contrary to popular Mormon belief, other Christian faiths do not believe that revelation is over.
In my opinion, distrust for Mormon Christology among other Christians has to do with a deep conviction about what Amulek says in the Book of Mormon - that an infinite atonement is necessary for human salvation. A Christ who is not in fact God in the classic trinitarian sense seems to many non-Mormons, I think, insufficient, because he doesn't share in the infinite characteristics that non Mormon Christians reserve for God's attributes. Of course, this gets to a really different understanding of the way the universe works among the various faiths.
Anyway, as to what Ron said - 1)None of the scriptures he cited do not apply to Mormon Christology. The Mormon Christ is in fact uncreated. (this seems to be a particular concern, due to the issues about infinite attributes I mentioned above) 2)Ron, I believe I remember from somewhere that you're a biblical literalist. If so, how do you reconcile your present negative convictions about polygamy with God's sanction of it in the Old Testament?
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag: I can appreciate that, I really can. But you can see how Mormons would have errrmm.... a lesser degree of respect for a document crafted by men that arrived at its conclusion through a democratic process rather then a document that God himself dictated through a man He Himself selected.
I'm not trying to compare the support for our respective beliefs here. Obviously, I feel support is stronger for mine and you for yours. I could easily make a similar statement in reverse, since we believe the council was guided by the Holy Spirit and that these beliefs are not derived from the creed, merely expressed within it. They derive from God-inspired texts as well as records of His own words.
quote:But could you perhaps elaborate on these "situations" you mentioned where this is important?
The most obvious example is which baptisms are accepted within each denomination. Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and many others accept each others' baptism. The LDS church does not accept their baptisms and vice-versa.
In a more prosaic sense, there are quite a few ecumenical organization whose express purpose isto bring together those with the common kernel of shared belief - Lewis's "Mere Christianity," if you will - that used the creed as the expression of the "minimum" set of shared beliefs as a basis for membership. It is entirely appropriate for those groups to use the creed-based definition of Christian and, in doing so, exclude those groups that don't share belief in the creed.
quote:If Mormons applied the same logic to the creed that you do, then Mormons must reject Catholics, Protestants, and all other splinters that adhere to the creed as non-Christians.
Which would be fine. I'd think they were wrong, just as you think I'm wrong here. I can live with that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And she's right - "[Christ] is the fully divine Son of God" is certainly something that can be said about the beliefs of traditional Christians, but you left out the part that actually differentiates our beliefs from Mormon beliefs ("eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.") (You did say this in your later post, but not in the one Kat took exception to.) Lacking that additional qualifier, Kat's exception to your post was accurate, not dissembling.
In that section that you say differentiates our beliefs, there is actually only one word, "Being" which is not wholly compatible with Mormon doctrine. In fact, I believe that if only two (or perhaps 3) words were changed in the Nicene Creed, it is fully compatible with the Mormon understanding of God.
quote:We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one will with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Father he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I recognize that those changes to the Creed are very important to some Christians and do not mean to minimize their significance. My point is that we accept far far more of the creed than we reject. We have much more in common than is generally assumed by either Mormons or more traditional Christians.
If your point is that the Mormon understanding of God differs in non-trivial ways from the Catholic understanding of God, then I have to agree. It does. It would be silly to argue otherwise. If Mormon's didn't consider those differences important then we'd accept the Creeds.
If your point is that Mormon's won't be saved because they aren't "real Chrisitians", then your out of line. Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian. I will accept his judgement but never yours.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your point is that Mormon's won't be saved because they aren't "real Chrisitians", then your out of line. Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian. I will accept his judgement but never yours.
I can't imagine any possible way you could read my posts in good faith and think this could possibly be my point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?"
Hmm. Not sure what you mean by "with propriety."
I think he certainly exercised many prophetic functions during his earthly life, so no, I don't think it would be improper to refer to him as a prophet. But I would say the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, and a whole host of other people.
I think part of the disconnect is that non-Mormon Christians don't have the same reference of "prophet" as a leadership role that Mormons do. Certainly Moses would be a strong counter example, but many would tend to think first of prophets like Amos that were critical of the power structure, not part of it. So the idea of a "founding prophet" just doesn't ring a bell.
Sorry didn't see this post until just now. I just meant, "Do you think it is appropriate to refer to Jesus as a prophet?" propriety/appropriate. Thanks for the clarification Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Dag, that wasn't directed at you but rather at some self proclaimed Christians I've known in real life who do espouse that view.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Rabbit. I agree wholeheartedly with "Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Thanks, that make perfect sense to me.
I guess I needed to understand how different denominations view the Nicene creed more accurately. Though admittedly for some reason it did not occur to me that Catholics would see the creed as having divine sanction which in retrospect should have been obvious to me. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nuts. I posted on the wrong computer and suddenly, I'm all Scott R again. There goes my 10k landmark...
quote:I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. I think having one of the apostles in that high of a governmental position would have been far more risky than having a president who happens to be LDS.
According to my dad, ETB was a terrible Secretary of Agriculture. I quote him directly, "Benson set agriculture back 20 years."
This was said by my dad after he'd converted, while Benson was prophet.
posted
Occ, point out where I have disbelieved what you guys are saying? Maybe I worded something wrong; I know I misinterpreted kat... I'm not too worried about Mitt Romney in this regard; he was my state's governor, and he didn't have me worried that the LDS church was going to execute a takeover of the state government.
I just think that the stakes are a bit higher now, and many people have misconceptions about Mormons. I think it's in his best interest to address these points. He could gain a lot of good will from the public at large, even.
-Bok
PS- sorry if this post is a bit of a mess, I just finished posting a longish post over at the 2350 Forum at Sake, my brain is fried.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read all six pages. Has anyone mentioned that Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, is LDS? This is the highest elected office ever held by a Mormon and yet Reid gets relatively little attention for his religious beliefs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occ, point out where I have disbelieved what you guys are saying?
I think he was referring to Lambert, who said that Kat wasn't being completely honest when she (and others) said that, yes, we really do believe that Jesus was the divine son of God and not just a "Lord of Kolob" (whatever that means).
quote:But Kat, you need to understand that if you are not totally straightforward, and are employing an artful dodge or two, then saying you are dissembling is fair, and it is not the same thing as calling you a liar.
oh my stars, I am not dissembling in the slightest. I believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, that he is the savior of the world, and that it is only through his atonement that we are able to be forgiven.
MattB informs me that he thinks you think I am aware of classical trinitarianism and am thumbing my nose at it, and this is why you think I'm dissembling. Okay - I don't really, and I am not. I have not studied what other Christians believe about Christ. For obvious reasons, that's not what we learn in Sunday school. What I believe about Christ is what I said above.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you haven't addressed it, so much as saying it doesn't exist.
We did address it by saying it doesn't exist. That is one example where you don't believe us. You can disagree that it doesn't exist, but the implication here is that we do think it exists and just don't want to acknowledge it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the problem here is the assumption that Mormons define themselves in opposition to other Christians. There is some inevitable "we believe this, unlike other people, who believe this", but there isn't much. There are no classes on what other Christians believe, and except for a few comments in Joseph Smith History and in the D&C (there's a whole section devoted to the Shakers), what other people believe isn't mentioned.
So, when you accuse Mormons of dissembling when they say they believe in Christ, you are assuming that we know exactly what you believe and claiming to believe the same while actually not. That simply isn't true. Mormons don't take as a given Catholic or Protestant beliefs and define themselves against it. Why should we?
Do you see what you're doing when you claim that we are not telling the truth? You are relying more on what other people have told you about Mormons than on what Mormons say about themselves. This would be a good moment to question your own sources.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, I never said that Mormons were not Christians. I did say that they do not understand the nature of Christ the same way that most other Christians do (and when I said "other," I was implying that Mormons are Christians).
True enough, Moslems only acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, not as one equal to God the Father, eternally pre-existent with the Father. Mormons regard Jesus as more than just a prophet, they see Him as Messiah and Saviour, but not eternally pre-existent with the Father.
But Mormons do exalt Joseph Smith as a prophet and founder of the church, and this seems similar to the way that Moslems regard Mohammed. I am not saying necessarily that this is evil or wrong, just that this is a similarity that stands out in distinction from other Christians. My own church (Seventh-day Adventist) believes that Ellen G. White was given the prophetic gift, and she was one of the founders of our church, but she insisted that we are to go by the Bible as authority for everything we believe, not by what she says, so she strictly forbade us to make her writings the standard for our faith. But obviously I am not as ready to condemn Mormons for having a founding prophet as other Christian denominations may be.
I do question the idea of having prophets who are elected--I believe it is God who chooses the ones to whom He gives spiritual gifts, including prophecy, and the church only has the authority to affirm the choice that God has made. But no doubt Mormons believe they are doing this when they elect their modern prophets. How are the rest of us to know any different?
Moslems forbid the use of alcohol, and Mormons, to the best of my knowledge, do as well. My church does too, so I am viewing this as a positive, not a criticism. But it is a point of similarity between Mormons and Moslems. I would hope that Mormon missionaries will take advantage of this similarity when trying to work with Moslems.
Mormons used to believe in and many practiced polygamy, and Moslems also believe in and some still practice polygamy. This is clearly a point of similarity, however much Mormons may protest that they no longer advocate or practice polygamy. All non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy, to the point that all Western, Christian-dominated nations treat having multiple spouses as a crime called bigamy.
But look I am not really seriously saying that Mormons are just like Moslems. I just thought that there are a few similarities, and at least to me it seemed amusing to point this out. Since this seems to have caused some Mormons here to become very defensive, I will drop it. Never mind.
And for what it matters, were Mitt Romney to become the Republican nominee, I would probably vote for him for president (though I would prefer John McCain).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been lurking this thread, but Ron, I'm really interested in your response to a question that has been asked of you by a couple people. You mentioned that all non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy. In an earlier post, you referenced the unchanging nature of God. Being a Biblical literalist, how do you reconcile God's apparent sanctioning of polygamy in the Old Testament with Christian condemnation of the act?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons regard Jesus as more than just a prophet, they see Him as Messiah and Saviour, but not eternally pre-existent with the Father.
You've been expressly told - numerous times now - that this is wrong:
quote:Originally posted by MattB: However, this does not means that Mormons do not revere Christ as the fully divine redeemer whose sacrifice made our salvation possible, the son of God, uncreated, worthy of worship. All of these are commonly understood and accepted among Mormons.
quote:Originally posted by MattB: The Mormon Christ is in fact uncreated. (this seems to be a particular concern, due to the issues about infinite attributes I mentioned above)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one will with the Father. Through him all things were made.
If I'm understanding the difference correctly, it's that Jesus is not the same being/substance. But he has always existed with God and was the means by which Creation occurred. (Could someone please confirm this for me?)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
