quote:Originally posted by Aros: It seems more likely to me that a few self-important Hatrackers have a beef with Mormons. . . .
Nothing new.
And you get this from my posts in this thread where I praise Mormon Theodicy and compare it favorably to traditional Christianity? Or the considerable amount of beef I have with Christianity? I mean, if I've ever criticized the Mormon Church on this forum, it's due to one specific aspect of the Church (it's treatment of homosexuals), or issues it has that are endemic to all organized religions. Said criticism is nothing compared to my dislike of IFB Christianity, or mainline Christianity in general.
So no, me saying Mormons aren't Christians is not because I have some vendetta against Mormons. If anything, I think Mormonism is a better religion *because* of the differences.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is obviously just one man's experience amongst a specific demographic, but during my LDS mission for 2 years in southern California, almost nobody ever mentioned the Nicene Creed. There were a lot of Christians that loosely fell under the 'Born Again' category of non-denominational Christians. I talked with thousands of people that identified themselves as Christians, and the majority of them were quite vocal that Mormons were not Christians.
They did not cite (except for 1 or 2 exceptions) the Nicene Creed. By and large they had 1 of 2 reasons for making this claim:
1) Mormons were a cult that were gravely deceived and were going to hell if they didn't admit this 2) Mormons didn't believe in the 3 gods-in-1 person trinity (which obviously is a result of the Nicene Creed).
If someone tells me I am not Christian because of point 2, I get it. If someone tells me I am not Christian for point 1, they are also entitled to that belief, but it pisses me off a bit because Mormons aren't a cult and I don't have the same harsh feelings toward their religion. I expect to find many 'mainstream' Christians in heaven.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Or even if you polled dictionaries. I don't see anything about the Nicene Creed there. It seems more like Mormons are saying "look I have a hat on my head," and someone else says "No that's a baseball cap, hats have a brim that goes all the way around and is at least 2 inches wide."
Would you say, then, that all Christians are Jews? So why even call Christianity a separate religion? How do you determine where denominational differenced end and a new religion begins?
Well, one obvious answer is the addition/modification of scripture. I.e, the Christian Bible adds canon to the Hebrew Bible and changes a few of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion. Likewise, the Muslim religion adds canon to the Christian Bible, or rather, retells it in a modified format and adds scripture in the Koran, so it's a different religion. The Mormon religion adds Canon to the Christian Bible, and changes some of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion.
But what are those Core beliefs? The Nicene Creed is basically just a logical explanation of the things Christians hold to be true. You could take an Southern Baptist who goes to Church every week who never heard of no creeds or somesuch, and still get him to explain every aspect of the Nicene Creed and why he believes it. (if not in the same format) And if you take the Catholic Church, and most protestant churches and look at this doctrinal/mission statement, it will align with the Nicene Creed if not being the literal text thereof. I just use "Nicene Creed" to mean "all the things that the Nicene Creed describe." Actually knowing the name and format thereof isn't important.
The LDS flat out reject some of those Core beliefs. Which is fine. Some of those beliefs weren't really decided upon/codified until the 4th century. But that codification was done specifically to define just what the word "Christian" meant and what the core values of the religion called Christianity are. And for the past 1700 years, even after the protestant reformation and the creation of many thousands of denominations, those denominations have adhered to those core beliefs. The Mormon religion, though using Christian scripture, claims to be based on a new revelation and denies some of those core beliefs. Therefore, it isn't Christian, just like Muslims aren't Christians, or Christians aren't Jews.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath. I do understand you and I agree with you according to that definition. I just think that the majority of people outside of the blogosphere and the more religiously educated parts of the internet the term Christian means "Follows Christs teachings". So when people say "Mormons aren't Christian" they are generally saying "Mormons don't follow the teachings of Christ".
quote: Would you say, then, that all Christians are Jews?
Well technically Christianity is a continuation of the Jewish religion. So if we were going to get technical the way we have been about the definition of Christian, then yes, you could technically consider Christians Jews.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a branch of Judaism that follows Christ? I've heard them called Jews for Jesus, but I don't know the actual name.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't there a branch of Judaism that follows Christ? I've heard them called Jews for Jesus, but I don't know the actual name.
There is such an organization but they are very non-mainstream and I would think most Jews consider a branch of Judaism that follows Christ to be "Christianity."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're called Messianic Jews. I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)
stilesbn: I understand why you might be worried about that. I would argue nobody in this thread seriously thinks Mormons don't follow Christ's teachings, or is trying to disparage LDS in any way.
Those definitions are more than technical - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Gnosticism, and probably half a dozen religions I can't think of right now all branch off from a single tradition. My point was that, with all of those religions, there's a point where you stop using the phrase "denomination" or "sect" or "group" and start using the phrase "religion", and that point is usually when there's a new revelation, new scripture is added, and core beliefs are changed.
Mormonism is a continuation of Christianity much in the same way as Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. We recognize that the vast differences in beliefs, structure, customs, scripture, and doctrine between Christianity and Judaism make them different religions (though similar), likewise Mormonism and Christianity are different religions. You don't colloquially call Christians Jews, so why should we colloquially call Mormons Christians?
Also, there's a logical fallacy present in your argument. If all Jews are worshipers of YHWH, does that mean only Jews are worshipers or YHWH? Does saying "he's not a Jew, he's a Christian" imply "he doesn't worship YHWH?"
Likewise "All Christians are followers of Christ" does not translate into "All non-Christians are not followers of Christ" All A are part of B does not imply all B are part of A. Just because you're part of a group of people that likes (among other things) wearing hats doesn't mean that everyone outside of your group doesn't like wearing hats.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I understand why you might be worried about that. I would argue nobody in this thread seriously thinks Mormons don't follow Christ's teachings, or is trying to disparage LDS in any way.
I had moved beyond this thread. I have found everyone in this thread to be quite knowledgeable and respectful. I also consider the people in this thread to be the exception rather than the norm.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to? I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to?
I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
My own opinion:
First, the bible is a series of stories, poems, histories, prophetic writings, doctrinal writings, epistles, and it even has an apocalypse. "Following the whole Bible" is somewhat of an impossible task - do you mean, take it all in to consideration and try to find wisdom from it? There are only a couple places where it actually tell you what to do.
1) Not as many as you think. The belief in the infallibility of the Bible is one of the most illogical, and paradoxically, unbiblical beliefs I've ever run into. The Bible itself never claims to be infallible, and since all of the authors of the Bible didn't realize they would all be compiled into something *called* the Bible, even if there was a verse that said "hey, by the way, all this stuff is like, totally the word of God and infallible" it wouldn't really mean much.
If you want to know what the Bible actually refers to as the "Word of God", read John chapter 1:
quote:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Clearly, the Bible itself refers to the Word of God as being person (implied to be Jesus Christ), NOT any book or collection of writings. Most of the books of the Bible admit human authorship - either by switching to the first person at some point (as Luke does during the parts of Acts he was actually physically present for), or by straight up saying "hey dudes, this is me, the dude who wrote this book." Some books (the Prophets) say "the word of the Lord came upon so-and-so", but even these emphasize that the book is so-and-so's telling of the word of the Lord, not the Word of the Lord itself.
So my own approach is: the Bible is a series of writings about people who God has spoken to or worked through, and that there's a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from it. But humans are imperfect, and their understanding is inevitably colored by their own imperfections and cultural viewpoint. And as always, they weree humans with free will, and were free to misinterpret or misunderstand. It's only when you take the writings in concert with one another, filtered through a cultural lens, and with prayer asking for God's assistance in interpreting the scripture that one can really begin to understand it.
So my understanding is: God speaks to everyone. The scripture is there to help ground us and keep us from misinterpreting what God is saying, but what God is saying helps illuminate and explain the scripture in new ways. Those two, combined with religious instruction (from a pastor or priest or something) and immersion in a community of people who believe like you do and are trying to understand the same scripture, helps you get a good idea of just what God is trying to tell you.
But at the end of the day Jesus Christ is the Word, the Bible is just a book about him.
2) I honestly don't know. I think Paul was a good man, and had a lot of good ideas, and pretty much founded the religion of Christianity. Whether or not that was what Jesus wanted, I have no idea.
3) We don't. The books picked were the ones everyone agreed upon, that (more or less) supported the doctrines and philosophy of the religion they were trying to codify. It was basically a big compromise of a lot of different beliefs and traditions, so the books we have are pretty much the most generic, one size fits all books that everyone could agree on. I know that's a gross oversimplification, and that books were also picked on accuracy, consistency, etc. How Revelation stayed in, I don't know.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Or even if you polled dictionaries. I don't see anything about the Nicene Creed there. It seems more like Mormons are saying "look I have a hat on my head," and someone else says "No that's a baseball cap, hats have a brim that goes all the way around and is at least 2 inches wide."
How do you determine where denominational differenced end and a new religion begins?
Well, one obvious answer is the addition/modification of scripture. I.e, the Christian Bible adds canon to the Hebrew Bible and changes a few of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion. Likewise, the Muslim religion adds canon to the Christian Bible, or rather, retells it in a modified format and adds scripture in the Koran, so it's a different religion. The Mormon religion adds Canon to the Christian Bible, and changes some of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion.
Great logic. And I think a lot of people ascribe to it.
Ultimately, though, isn't the adoption of a Messianic figure a better indicator of what separates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? Jews don't have one (yet). Christians have Jesus. And Muslims have Mohammad.
We're fiddling with two other definitions. One, additions to canon, is shared by Catholics and most of the Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Ethiopian). The other, a rejection of the Nicene Creed, is shared by many Protestant groups and many born-again fundamentalists.
By this logic, isn't the LDS church still Christian? Or are some of these other "Christian" churches possibly not Christian as well?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Thanks Dogbreath!
Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to? I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
I can't speak for all Christians, or all Mormons, but here are my reactions to your questions: 1) I accept all the books of the bible (and the Book of Mormon) as inspired. I also think some of the instruction was intended for particular times, and some is intended for all times. Differentiating those is difficult and requires prayer and inspiration. 2) I don't think Paul's words are less valid because he didn't walk with Christ, anymore than Isaiah's or Ezekiel's were. Prophets can have the will of God revealed to them without having lived during Jesus' time. 3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible". I study the Bible and do my best to follow the teachings I find there. I also find some value in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, but not as much as in the Bible. Being a Mormon, I accept the idea of a broad and living canon and the belief that there is no end to what God can authoritatively say to his children through inspired prophets. As such, I believe God can inspire prophets in any era to speak truth, and that by being sensitive to the Holy Spirit we can know those things that are true.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: They're called Messianic Jews. I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)
In my experience, other Jews call them "heretics". Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
1. From the LDS perspective, at least, we believe God calls prophets through whom he reveals his word. We believe the Bible to be a compilation of inspired writings by prophets as well as a collection of accounts centered around the people who had dealings with God. We also believe that much has been lost from the Bible since it was first compiled, and from the individual writings that were gathered into the Bible, whether through deliberate changing or omission or the vagaries of translation over the centuries. We regard the Book of Mormon especially as scripture that anchors what the Bible contains and completes the truths that it has lost.
2. We believe that Paul was a prophet, with an apostolic calling just like that of Peter, James, and John, and enjoyed the same divine inspiration to lead the church that they did after Christ was crucified. Like SenojRetep said, most prophets did not walk alongside Christ, yet we still consider them to speak his word through divine inspiration. We believe one must study the words of the prophets and rely on divine confirmation to know they are true--with Paul's words as with all others.
3. I mostly answered this in #1, but I'll reemphasize that the way to know any scripture is truly the word of God is by studying it, applying it, and asking for divine confirmation that it is true. Personally, I think the Bible is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. It's still changing, though not as drastically as it must have in the first few centuries after Christ.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Great logic. And I think a lot of people ascribe to it.
Ultimately, though, isn't the adoption of a Messianic figure a better indicator of what separates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? Jews don't have one (yet). Christians have Jesus. And Muslims have Mohammad.
We're fiddling with two other definitions. One, additions to canon, is shared by Catholics and most of the Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Ethiopian). The other, a rejection of the Nicene Creed, is shared by many Protestant groups and many born-again fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I meant more of the combination of all three than just one. As far as rejecting the Nicene Creed - I grew up in a born-again fundamentalist church. We never used the Nicene Creed - indeed, I didn't even know what it *was* until I was about 15. But they did teach "these are the things you need to believe to be saved", and those beliefs coincided with the Nicene Creed. They do, however, *add* a prerequisite to salvation, which is undergoing a mystical experience called being "born again." I can't really tell you how it works, or indeed what it is exactly, and I never really got a clear answer in 15 years of church, but damned if they don't think it's something important and that they've all had it happen to them.
So anyway, I guess they're Christian in that they believe everything that the Nicene Creed describes. OTOH, *they* think they're the *only* Christians since they define "being Christian" as "undergoing a mystical experience where you get born again". I honestly have never heard anyone discuss whether other denominations think fundies are Christians, non-Christians, or just crazy. Like you, I would really rather not classify them as Christians, since their beliefs are so distorted.
quote:[QB]By this logic, isn't the LDS church still Christian? Or are some of these other "Christian" churches possibly not Christian as well?
That would be on a case by case basis, I think. The problem with protestant churches when trying to classify them this way is that for most denominations, there's very little organization or oversight, so pretty much every church has it's own doctrine and it's own beliefs. There are quite a few "non-denominational" churches that have *no* guidelines at all. So I lump them all together as "protestant Christian" even though they might legitimately have beliefs a lot more divergent from Nicene Christianity than the LDS Church. If one of those churches suddenly became an international movement with millions of members...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, OTOH, is organized with clearly defined doctrine that is universally followed by all it's members, and is IMO culturally, doctrinally, organizationally, and scripturally distinct enough to qualify as it's own religion. As I said before, though, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons claiming to be Christian if they do desire. I just don't think it's an accurate claim. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be interesting to see some sort of a survey to determine what the generally accepted definition of "Christian" is to the layman.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with those who have said the bible was "inspired" and not necessarily the exactly infallible word of God. It really bugs me when people say that every bit of it is right. That obviously can't be true, since several sections of it contradict one another.
quote:3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible".
The council of early church leaders at approximately 300AD decided to cannonize what they felt were the best books for their bible. They did this because many of them were not using the same books and had previously disagreed on which books to include. This is why the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. My point is that since human beings decided which books to include and we were not told which ones to follow (since they all claim to be correct), how do we know which ones are right?
Anyway, great answers from everybody so far.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehh. . . I still say that the best definition is self-definition. I don't think any individual has the right to judge someone else's beliefs.
I know a lot of Christians that believe in reincarnation and karma. They are a member of a mainstream Christian sect . . . and they believe in a Hindu afterlife.
If someone identifies as a Christian, I don't feel that I have any right to say that they're not. Just like if they identify as cross-gender. It's up to individuals to categorize themselves.
I suppose there's a difference, however. I could analytically decide for myself that Catholicism isn't Christianity. I could believe that on an intellectual level. But if someone told me they were Christian, I would take it at face value -- regardless of their religion. I'd never tell them that they weren't. I tend to think that there's a big difference between intellectually categorizing a group of people and judging a single person.
Then again, most laymen aren't terribly familiar with doctrine. Neither your average Catholic nor your average Mormon could probably distinguish the difference between the Mormon Godhood and the Catholic Trinity. Nor do they know anything about the Nicene Code. For all intents and purposes, they're both Christian . . . regardless of how you judge their religious doctrine as a whole.
I can understand an intellectual argument that Mormonism isn't Christian . . . I might agree on most points, actually . . . but if you told my Grandma that she isn't a Christian, I'd be mighty tempted to punch you in the nose. Hey . . . maybe I'm not Christian after all? Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible".
The council of early church leaders at approximately 300AD decided to cannonize what they felt were the best books for their bible. They did this because many of them were not using the same books and had previously disagreed on which books to include. This is why the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. My point is that since human beings decided which books to include and we were not told which ones to follow (since they all claim to be correct), how do we know which ones are right?
I understand the history, but I'm still not clear on what "which ones are right" even means. Do you mean something like "If God had made the Bible (instead of a council of men), here's what He would have included?" or do you mean "What is the set of books that are sufficiently pure examples of direct revelation from God?" or do you mean "What are the most important words God wants us to know today?" All of those could be interpreted as "the right Bible" but I think they could all be different things. Personally, I think the Bible is somewhat 'overcomplete' in that there's more there than is strictly useful for us today. But I believe what is there was almost entirely inspired by God and appropriate for the time in which it was given.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you ask a Biblical Literalist, they will say that every word in every book is the word of God, unblemished by the imperfect hands of mortal man.
Yet history shows that it was a group of imperfect mortal men--a committee, which popular wisdom says is even less likely to make a good decision, that determined which of the many Gospels in existence actually were combined into the Bible.
Why was the Book of Judas, or the Book of Thomas left out? Could mortal men have made a mistake and added a fraudulent gospel or excised a divine one?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which one was that book where jesus was a kid and he was all flaunting his power and striking people blind for disagreeing with him or whatever?
it unsurprisingly was left on the cutting room floor, but i forget its name
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe you're thinking of the Infancy Story of Thomas, also sometimes called the Gospel of Thomas, but not to be confused with the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which is a collection of sayings attributed to the adult Jesus.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
