quote:Just so we're clear-- what beliefs did OSC mangle?
He also states that we don't believe in "the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah. That was the one that stuck out the most when I read it, and then I forgot to include it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why does one require a higher degree to serve in other churches? Mormonism requires no degree at all. I've had Bishops who were plumbers.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why does one require a higher degree to serve in other churches? Mormonism requires no degree at all. I've had Bishops who were plumbers.
Your statement is extremely overbroad. One does not require a higher degree to "serve" in other churches. Some churches - including my own - have requirements of higher degrees to serve in certain positions.
I'm not quite sure what the point of your question is, though? Do you think that the existence of such requirements is proof for OSC's statement that one has to go to college to understand trinitarian beliefs?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:most important, the idea that God must be either a personal god or an infinite, perfect god.
Hmm...I had to search to find out where this was implied.
I don't think that OSC's essay makes those two characteristics mutually exclusive. I see where you might get that impression-- last quarter of the essay-- but I don't know that it's the right conclusion to draw.
quote:The idea that most lay Christians actually believe something closer to the Mormon conception of God than what the clergy believe.
My experience agrees with yours; the Mormon idea that God has a body of flesh and bone does take people back.
However, my experience also influences me to believe that there is a divide between what lay people believe and what is actually professed by the various creeds, statements, etc. (Same goes for the LDS)
I don't think OSC is correct when he says that lay people pray, thinking God has a form; I do think he's correct in saying that most lay people do not consider the mysteries/paradoxes inherent in a Trinitarian view of God.
This is assuming that I know what other people think, and understand the Trinitarian view of God...which I may not.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think he's correct in saying that most lay people do not consider the mysteries/paradoxes inherent in a Trinitarian view of God.
How could you possibly know that? It seems extremely arrogant for you to assume that you can know what goes on in the minds of complete strangers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have to admit: that was a really, really good one. Scott, I'm afraid you were served.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statement is extremely overbroad. One does not require a higher degree to "serve" in other churches.
Okay, to be specific, in order to head a congregation.
Of course, I don't really know how the Catholic Church does it, but some sort of advanced degree is usually called for in much of Protestantism, usually a Ph.D.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, I don't really know how the Catholic Church does it, but some sort of advanced degree is usually called for in much of Protestantism, usually a Ph.D.
I don't think "usually a Ph.D." is accurate, but I don't know for sure. Many Protestant denominations do have formal educational requirements for those who head congregations. Specific education is required in the Catholic Church as well.
Just as specific training is required in the LDS Church. It's not college, but it's still education above and beyond what the typical high schooler gets.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just as specific training is required in the LDS Church. It's not college, but it's still education above and beyond what the typical high schooler gets.
Hmm...do you mean the training that LDS missionaries receive?
Otherwise, I'm racking my brain to think of some other formalized training our leaders receive...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The main point of disagreement between Mormons and traditional Christianity is that we believe in the biblical God — the God in whose image we were made, the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone — and they don't.
Since he says that 1) Mormons believe in "the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone" and that 2) this is a main point of disagreement between Mormons and traditional Christianity, he is saying that traditional Christians do not believe in "the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone."
Catholics do believe in ""the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone." (We use the term "glorified" to describe Christ's post-Resurrection body.) My understanding is that the mainstream Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) do as well (although I don't know if they use "glorified"). dkw seems to have confirmed this with respect to Methodists at least.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh...oh, that's not training. That's for teenagers - it's like regular sunday school, only every day. Seriously - seminary consists more of talent shows and movies than anything I'd call training.
More importantly, no one except BYU will ask someone for the rest of their life if they graduated from seminary as a teenager, and since 70% of the church are converts (and therefore usually didn't grow Mormon or go to seminary), you certainly don't need to go to seminary to be a leader.
It sounds all impressive, and while I enjoyed it I desperately wish it actually was what I think you're picturing. It isn't nearly that rigorous and, like I said, once you've graduated from high school it never comes up again.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as Javert pointed out, Seminary is not compulsory (though most LDS teens, at least in Utah, attend) and it is not a prerequisite for holding any position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh...oh, that's not training. That's for teenagers - it's like regular sunday school, only every day. Seriously - seminary consists more of talent shows and movies than anything I'd call training.
quote:Aha. I'm not prepared to call it "training," but I can see why you used that term.
The LDS Church calls it "instruction."
I'd still like an answer from Pooka about the point of her original question on this topic. The way it was phrased ("So why does...") certainly sounds as if she was trying to hold up the more extensive educational requirements of other churches to demonstrate something. It's not clear what that something was.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And as Javert pointed out, Seminary is not compulsory (though most LDS teens, at least in Utah, attend) and it is not a prerequisite for holding any position.
OK. It's still strongly encouraged, though. OSC's comment about needing college to understand our view, besides being flat out wrong, doesn't seem to say much of anything significant in the face of the fact that Mormons have special instruction in their beliefs.
(I think it should be clear that I don't consider special religious instruction in any way a bad thing.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sunday School is instruction as well on the same manner as seminary. Does going to Catholic or Protestant Sunday School qualify someone to be a priest or a reverend?
Comparing the seminary Mormon teenagers attend to the theological seminaries pre-clergy attend is not flattering to the theological seminaries.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "head" of the congregation in most protestant denominations is the chair or president of the church council. No educational requirements there.
Ordained clergy also serve the church, and support the ministry of the laity. They have educational requirements. Not a PhD, the basic professional degree is a Master's. The more advanced degree is a Doctor of Ministry (DMin) which focuses on practical areas of leadership -- you could get a DMin in Congregational Administration, or Preaching, or Counseling. People with PhDs tend to be professors, not pastors.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC's comment about needing college to understand our view, besides being flat out wrong, doesn't seem to say much of anything significant in the face of the fact that Mormons have special instruction in their beliefs.
My guess is it was an allusion to ivory tower theologians which must act as intermediaries between the confusing complexities and paradoxes of their doctrine and the common man who would otherwise be unable to comprehend it.
I can sympathize with the sentiment, though I don't think the LDS Church is necessarily much better in that regard than the Catholic church.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
There's a giant gulf between the type of instruction received at LDS seminary classes and the instruction received at theological schools.
quote:Catholics do believe in ""the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone." (We use the term "glorified" to describe Christ's post-Resurrection body.) My understanding is that the mainstream Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) do as well (although I don't know if they use "glorified"). dkw seems to have confirmed this with respect to Methodists at least.
When you say this, it sounds very much like the Mormon belief.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our instructions are just more quantity than of a special quality.
Aren't there particular religious classes teenagers get in Catholic School? These do not qualify the students to head congregations.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know there is very little difference between the Catholic/Protestant and LDS teachings in regard to Christ's bodily resurrection. That would be an area that OSC got it wrong.
Edit: I should add that there are scholars who have proposed a more "metaphorical" interpretation of resurrection, but their theories have not been accepted as doctrine by any denomination that I know of.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Aren't there particular religious classes teenagers get in Catholic School? These do not qualify the students to head congregations.
Certainly they do. They do not qualify the student for ordination, but clergy are not the head of the congregation, they are a resource for the congregation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until pooka clarifies the intent of her PhD comment, I'm not going to discuss that aspect of this anymore. I'm aware of the differences between LDS Seminary and formal theological training. Those differences are not relevant to my point. Therefore, it's clear I haven't made my point.
And I'm not going to invest more time in trying to make my point until I receive the requested clarification.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: but clergy are not the head of the congregation
Ack!
Yes, we are also aware of the leader/servant principle. I used the word "serve" initially and Dag complained I was too broad.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I edited on you there. "Ack!" used to say something passive aggressive about me not being educated.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Central to Christianity, Trinity is the doctrine that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by "person"): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son Himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union.
For Mormons, resurrection means the eternal binding of one's spirit to a glorified, physical body. We define God and Christ both as having a definite "placeness" because of their physicality.
IF the above quote from Wikipedia is correct, can you tell me what is meant by "all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why saying that learning more about God is a bad thing. No one, even with tons of education is going to understand everything about God. Saying that God is too big for anyone to completely get (intellectually) is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.
And there are other ways of "understanding" God - emotionally, spiritually - and more. Simple ways, complicated ways, rational ways, prophetic ways...
We need all of these for what still won't be a complete "picture."
I think that the idea that God can be "dumbed down" so as not to be elitist is just wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scroll down a bit, you'll see a nice diagram. While this is a gross oversimplication, you might think of it as the hands being separate from the heart being separate from the head, but all being one person.
Now, there's lots of confusion over the exact details of what a trinity is/means, but the basic sketch is pretty simple.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, all explanations of God are gross oversimplification. And that's okay.
The over simplification that is useful to me is the analogy of light. Bearing in mind that all analogies fail.
God = all light in the universe, the idea of light. Jesus - Sun - pure light Holy Spirit - the light that is from bulbs, candles, bonfires, flashlights, phosphorescent fungus...still light but tied to matter which forms, limits, colours...it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was cleaning up my desktop and found this that I had failed to post:
My point on whether advanced degrees are needed to serve as a congregational head goes back to the assertion that OSC is wrong in
quote:The idea that most lay Christians actually believe something closer to the Mormon conception of God than what the clergy believe.
Now one point about advanced degrees has to do with the nature of academia and how in order to get a Ph.D. one has to go beyond the acquisition of knowledge into research and often the production of something new.
There actually are Ph.D.'s in religious studies at BYU. They sometimes have small followings (like, uh, Kent), but are generally overlooked for large church callings. I don't know if it just demonstrates a difference in talents or if there's actually suspicion of the effect of academia on doctrine.
It's an interesting question.
But my point, as requested, is to question why higher education is needed if not for a correct understanding of doctrine?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, (to your second to last post) of course it can't. But that doesn't mean we should eschew book learning. Or that it isn't one way to enhance a personal relationship. It isn't an obstacle to one.
Tom, no. I don't think so. The Holy Spirit (in my way of understanding is that which is Divine in each of us as light is in candles. Ish.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, what do you mean by "understand"? I don't know that human beings can ever totally understand God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree that we can't totally understand him, but many people feel there are certain hoops to be jumped through to understand him at all -- and I don't mean an advanced degree -- it is an aspect of human nature to retire from the effort involved in participating in an understanding of God, to say that is for other people, or for myself perhaps further down the road.
P.S. Javert has it, actually, in my opinion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that human beings can ever totally understand God.
I go back and forth on this point, kmboots. Right now, I feel like we CAN understand Him-- if anything is possible with God, than so is that.
But since I don't believe that everything is possible, even with God's influence...hmm...I think I'm in a paradox...
quote:Who says that?
No one so far-- I checked. Twice. That gorilla over there keeps making kissy faces at you, though. I'd...uh...yeah, I'd stay away from him.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:why higher education is needed if not for a correct understanding of doctrine?
Why is education or training ever needed?
To prepare people for the jobs they are going to do. A Catholic priest, for example, plays many different roles as part of his service. Many of these roles are done much better by someone who has training to do them.
Part of this is an education in the ins and outs of Catholic doctrine and theology. These fields can be complicated and difficult to understand in places.
Of course, the main reason that he gets this education is not so he can hoard this information and get people to follow his commands, but rather to be able to effectively and accurately disseminate it to the people he ministers to.
I don't see how this would be less preferable to people having a role of disseminating doctine and theology (and also applying it in all parts of his other ministry) without getting any sort of education or training in what this doctrine and theology is.
--- To be sure, Catholicism does not regard priests as being the only people who can have an understanding of God nor necessarily superior to the laity in this respect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Like understanding music, there can be an emotional, intuitive response to a song or symphony whether or not one has a degree in music. This can be enhanced by knowledge about the artist, the style, the technique (and so forth). Or that knowledge can be a obstacle.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that bothers me about Scott and pooka's participation here is that they really don't seem to me to be looking to understand how other religions see things, but rather looking for avenues to attack them. Maybe that's not their intent, but it does seem that way to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in a Congregationalist Trinitarian church. I was confirmed (our church practice infant baptism) at 13, after 9-10 years of Sunday school, plus an additional (concurrent with my last year of Sunday school) confirmation class. After confirmation, I asked and was accepted to the Diaconate Board of my church. This is the "spiritual" leadership of the local church (the board of trustees, which had overlapping but not exact membership [I was quite wisely not allowed to join the Trustee Board at 13] controlled the budget). We decided what to spend money on, as far as church initiatives/charitable donations and efforts were concerned. The minister sat in on the board, but was not a member. Any suggestions by the minister were approved by the board (or rejected), as far as modifications to church services or the like. At 13, I hadn't graduated middle school yet, much less college (or beyond).
I believe that isn't always the case in more "organized" denominations (my denomination, the UCC, has a hybrid national structure, but the local church is considered the ultimate arbiter of things), but I wouldn't know for sure.
Just throwing this in as a perspective from a "Traditional Christian".
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Nice to know that he is as respectful of other Christian's beliefs as Huckabee is about Romney's.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
If its any consolation Dana, I felt exactly the same way. OSC does to mainstream Christianity in this essayexactly what we Mormons complain about when other Christians do it to us. I am always dismayed when I see members of my church doing this. I was particularly disappointed and a bit surprised to read it from OSC.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Scott, I'm afraid you were served.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
