quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's is amusing that I care about being labeled a Christian while for you it carries a lot of baggage. Part of that is probably that Mormons have been told they aren't Christians (Not this time, but it was a conclusion this board reached in another thread) because they believe in a different Christ than the Nicene creed, and it has been that way over 180 years now. Our baptisms don't count, whereas other sects do for example when converting to Catholicism. IMHO part of the reasons Mormons in Utah ally so strongly with the GOP is because evangelicals are there, and they think it's the party of Jesus.
I'm not really sure that's the reason, though? Mormons are far more Republican than any other religious group in the US - much more so than any Evangelical group. Also, why would Mormons identify more with Evangelicals (who, in my experience, are generally the MOST likely to be hostile towards Mormons) than, say, Catholics, Episcopalians, or Seventh Day Adventists?
I always thought it was more of a White identity thing for American Mormons, anyway, seeing as the Republican Party has a lot more "white and delightsome" folks than the Democrats. I have a number of non-white Mormon friends and coworkers here, and every last one of them is a staunch liberal. (They also resent a lot of the condescension and systemic racism they experience from Utah Mormons - one acquaintance of mine ended up leaving BYU in Provo due to the intense bigotry she experienced from other students there)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question. My one friend is not baptized. And he says that since he was not baptized in childhood, he should not believe in God. I think his position is not correct. and you?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question. My one friend is not baptized. And he says that since he was not baptized in childhood, he should not believe in God. I think his position is not correct. and you?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
Dogbreath:
quote:I'm not really sure that's the reason, though? Mormons are far more Republican than any other religious group in the US - much more so than any Evangelical group. Also, why would Mormons identify more with Evangelicals (who, in my experience, are generally the MOST likely to be hostile towards Mormons) than, say, Catholics, Episcopalians, or Seventh Day Adventists?
I always thought it was more of a White identity thing for American Mormons, anyway, seeing as the Republican Party has a lot more "white and delightsome" folks than the Democrats. I have a number of non-white Mormon friends and coworkers here, and every last one of them is a staunch liberal. (They also resent a lot of the condescension and systemic racism they experience from Utah Mormons - one acquaintance of mine ended up leaving BYU in Provo due to the intense bigotry she experienced from other students there)
1: I said one of the reasons.
2: There have been Christians hostile to Mormonism since its inception. That almost makes it worse because we try to bend over backwards to earn the label. But Nixon's rebranding of the Republican party was absolutely a shift in messaging where the GOP became the party of Jesus, whereas the Democratic party became the party of god*
We can see this today, the GOP if anything has pushed even further that it is the party of faith while the Democrats are the secular godless party. Add to this the fact the GOP claims loudly to be anti-abortion, pro-religious freedom, and small government, and you have the lion's share of reasons Utah Mormons largely identify as GOP.
White identity plays a role and it's super hard to overstate the huge effect Ezra Taft Benson played (Link) before he was a prophet on calcifying conservatism and demonizing liberalism as the way God felt about things. This again happened during the GOP Christian rebranding. But I think anti-socialism is the greater driver than racism.
In any case, you can find many liberal white Mormons in even Utah these days. It's increasingly common.
edit: It's an embarrassment your friends felt unwelcome here.
*lower case god, whatever you believe in or don't believe in is fine.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
No. (Although that is true.*) What I am saying is that, like Mormons, Catholics can consider someone Christian and yet still have to baptise them if they convert.
*Along with several other Christian sects so not just Mormons.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not having baptisms "count" is not the same thing as not being considered Christian. Would my baptism count if I were converting? And it isn't just Mormons; there are several Christian sects who would need to be baptized if converting.
Your baptism would not count and neither would any other sect's, but not because you weren't Christian. It's a question of correct authority. No particular sect is exempt.
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the same Christ I do. Or that you are as Christian as I am. Possibly even more so.
Exactly.
Are you saying Catholics accept the authority of a Lutheran baptism, but not the authority of a Mormon's?
No. (Although that is true.*) What I am saying is that, like Mormons, Catholics can consider someone Christian and yet still have to baptise them if they convert.
*Along with several other Christian sects so not just Mormons.
But Catholics don't consider Mormons Christian, but the inverse is not true.
"While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.”"
Forgive me, I can't actually find the original statement I'm quoting.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Catholic Answers is a lay organization/magazine run out of San Diego. I don't know if it's publications are official or not - I think they are approved of by the Catholic Church anyway)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catholic Answers takes too much upon themselves in my opinion. They are very conservative. They operate with permission but they are not a substitute or an official "spokesgroup".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
*Despite the fact that the then-Cardinal likely considered squashing SSM the "range of problems" on which Mormons and Catholics could work together.
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In any case, you can find many liberal white Mormons in even Utah these days. It's increasingly common.
This appears to be incorrect. According to polling by the Pew Research center, Mormons are becoming more conservative with the passage of time, not less. So it would appear to be decreasingly common.
I suppose my main issue with your claim here that Republicans being the "party of Jesus" are the main reason why white Mormons are so overwhelmingly Republican is that, if that were the case, you would expect to see significant numbers of minority Mormons who also vote Republican because it's the party of Jesus. But that doesn't actually play out in real life. Mormon theology and beliefs in general appear to me (admittedly an outsider, but one who's read the Book of Mormon, D&C, and has read a decent amount about LDS history and practices) to be very socialistic in nature. To the point that all of the non-White Mormons I knew are much more liberal than I am economically, with some of them identifying as socialists. The contrast between beliefs and practice is especially jarring there.
That isn't to say Mormons now are choosing to vote Republican due to racist beliefs (I think, generally, most people just tend to vote for one party or the other due to it being the popular or easy thing to do in their family or community), but that that trend started more due to Nixon's racist dog whistling (which occurred at a point in time when Blacks were still being denied the priesthood) than due Republicans being "the party of Jesus."
For a better look at the origins of the Religious Right in the US, this article is pretty informative: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133_Page3.html#.WUhSB2grJhE I can say it's extremely accurate for my religious upbringing, anyway (I have family members to attended Bob Jones University, and they provided a lot of the intellectual backing of our denomination - many of the church staff attended seminary there), I'm not sure how much bleeds over into the Mormon experience in the 70s.
quote:edit: It's an embarrassment your friends felt unwelcome here.
I would say they didn't just "feel" unwelcome, they were pretty explicitly told that they were unwelcome.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's a list that specifies which denominations baptisms are considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. To (once again) reiterate kmbboots, It appears that the validity/invalidity of the baptism has nothing to do with whether they consider a denomination "Christian", but rather the ritual and doctrine behind the baptism. Specifically:
"Most Protestant baptisms are recognized as valid baptisms. Some are not. It is very difficult to question the validity of a baptism because of an intention either on the part of the minister or on the part of the one being baptized. Water must be poured and the Trinitarian formula naming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be used."
Since the LDS don't believe in the Trinity, this is most likely why their baptism is (currently) not seen as valid. There are numerous other denominations that are considered invalid for similar reasons if you read that document. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with singling out Mormons or calling them un-Christian.
I'll try to address your other points tomorrow. I was not trying to suggest your friend's discomfort was all perception.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yes, in 2016 there was a drop in the number of Mormons who identified as Republican - which correlates to a historically unpopular Republican presidential candidate and a conservative Independent candidate who just happened to be Mormon and from Utah. Voting for McMullin doesn't make one a liberal. Look at the rate of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I was not trying to suggest your friend's discomfort was all perception.
I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything, and this really is a genuine question since I've seen other times where you've had some conflicts arise due to you having a somewhat different English vernacular than most people (maybe due to growing up outside of the US?): do you really not understand that when you tell someone who experienced something bad "I'm sorry you feel like that bad thing happened", you are in effect telling them "I don't really believe that what you said actually happened"?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: We're back in that place again. Where I feel like you strongly dislike me (Which you've said is not the case), and talking to you starts to feel like a chore, because I like you, but I hate frustrating people.
quote:First result in Google.
I did look up that exact result, could not determine at that time if Catholic.com was any sort of official website. Could not figure out where to go to get an official statement. Ran out of time.
quote:Since the LDS don't believe in the Trinity, this is most likely why their baptism is (currently) not seen as valid. There are numerous other denominations that are considered invalid for similar reasons if you read that document. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with singling out Mormons or calling them un-Christian.
I was never trying to argue that Mormons are being "singled out" for this treatment. I'm aware we are not the only sect for which baptism is necessary. We can stop talking about Mormons being uniquely treated in this way, because neither of us believe that.
quote:*sigh*
Yes, in 2016 there was a drop in the number of Mormons who identified as Republican - which correlates to a historically unpopular Republican presidential candidate and a conservative Independent candidate who just happened to be Mormon and from Utah. Voting for McMullin doesn't make one a liberal. Look at the rate of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years.
Why the frustration, Dogbreath? I went to school at UVU and took classes at BYU. I was a political science major. I conducted exit polling. I lived in the seat of Mormon conservativism for 10 years. I've been a Mormon my entire life. When I tell you meeting white liberals is increasingly common, I get that's just one guy's opinion, but it's a pretty well developed one. And this former Republican could direct you to many Mormon white people who are liberals.
There wasn't a drop in just 2016, the drop started in 2012, which is why we see an increase in Mormons identifying as independent. You can go to Mormon wards in Washington DC where being a Republican is considered odd.
quote:I suppose my main issue with your claim here that Republicans being the "party of Jesus" are the main reason why white Mormons are so overwhelmingly Republican is that, if that were the case, you would expect to see significant numbers of minority Mormons who also vote Republican because it's the party of Jesus. But that doesn't actually play out in real life.
I never said it was "the main reason". I said it was a reason.
"IMHO part of the reasons Mormons in Utah ally so strongly with the GOP is because evangelicals are there, and they think it's the party of Jesus."
I also clarified that I was talking about Mormons in Utah.
quote:I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything, and this really is a genuine question since I've seen other times where you've had some conflicts arise due to you having a somewhat different English vernacular than most people (maybe due to growing up outside of the US?):
I seriously doubt whatever issues my vernacular have are a result of having grown up outside the US, unfortunately for me.
quote:do you really not understand that when you tell someone who experienced something bad "I'm sorry you feel like that bad thing happened", you are in effect telling them "I don't really believe that what you said actually happened"?
I understand that 100%. But that's not what I said. I said it's an embarrassment they felt unwelcome. I took you at their word that they felt unwelcome, and said it's an embarrassment that that happened. Why else would it be an embarrassment if not because they were mistreated? I wouldn't say it's an embarrassment if the Mormons your friends encountered did nothing wrong.
I've personally seen racism and prejudice directed towards minority groups, in Utah. It's also been directed at me (Because I was raised overseas). I was not questioning whether it had happened to your friends. I'm so sorry that happened.
Also as an aside, very impressed you've read the BOM and D&C. Would welcome the opportunity some time to get your impressions of particularly the former.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Yes. It makes sense that you think that your theology is correct. But we also think that our theology is correct. If you want to debate theology, we can but that is not what I am doing here. I am just saying that, while Catholics acknowledge that you follow Christ - and are therefore Christian, your notion of Christ is sufficiently different that when you baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you mean something fundamentally different from what we mean. Different enough that it does not follow our rules for baptism.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: We're back in that place again. Where I feel like you strongly dislike me (Which you've said is not the case), and talking to you starts to feel like a chore, because I like you, but I hate frustrating people
I'm sorry to be such a frustrating person, then. But seriously, what have I said to give you that impression? I've been pretty dispassionate and laid back in this discussion, used a lot of placating and conciliatory phrases so as not to come across as too pointed, and introduced my own experiences and perspectives for discussion rather than just focusing on yours. Can you look back through my posts here and identify what I said to give you that impression?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I feel I am frustrating you, Dogbreath. Not that you are frustrating. It's mostly inferred, but when you type "*sigh*" that to me is meant to clearly signal frustration or exasperation to me.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't know how "official" that is but, still, it doesn't go so far as to say not Christian. From a mainstream Christian theological viewpoint all that is true. Yet we would hardly call you Muslim or Jewish or Pagan. Your is, in our view, a Christian sect whose theology (along with that of other non-Trinitarian sects) falls short of that of other Christian sects that have a correct monotheistic, Trinitarian understanding of God. No one doubts that you follow Christ but your understanding of Christ is incompatible with mainstream Christianity's understanding of Christ. As ours is incompatible with yours.
BB, as an extreme example, if someone claimed to follow Christ but sincerely believed that Christ was a talking purple unicorn would you consider that belief on par with your theology?
But that's what I don't understand. This is more like Mormons are taking the Bible at face value, and saying OK since God was born of a woman and talks to his Father, and describes having a will distinct from his own, we'll take them at their word, and other Christians saying, "Nope, our council has determined that Christ his father and the Holy Ghost are some sort of purple unicorn manifestation both being and non-being, and since you don't buy that, you don't count for purposes of being Christian."
I get *you* think we are Christians. But it seems clear to me the Catholic position is that our concept of Christ differs so much from the Nicene creed that we basically worship a unicorn.
Yes. It makes sense that you think that your theology is correct. But we also think that our theology is correct. If you want to debate theology, we can but that is not what I am doing here. I am just saying that, while Catholics acknowledge that you follow Christ - and are therefore Christian, your notion of Christ is sufficiently different that when you baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you mean something fundamentally different from what we mean. Different enough that it does not follow our rules for baptism.
I'm not sure I'm convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Mormons can be rightly called Christians.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I said I feel I am frustrating you, Dogbreath. Not that you are frustrating.
That may be what you meant, but you said that you feel that I "deeply dislike" you, talking to me feels like a chore, and that you like me but hate "frustrating people". Did you mean that you hate feeling like you are causing frustration in others?
quote:It's mostly inferred, but when you type "*sigh*" that to me is meant to clearly signal frustration or exasperation to me.
Is that the case?
I'm not seeing how you go from "mild exasperation at obstinance" to "deep dislike".
I mean, you posted a study that shows a pretty steady decline in the percentage of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years accompanied by a corresponding rise in the number who identify as Republican, and somehow inferred that that data actually means the percentage of liberal Mormons is increasing. And then when confronted with "hey BB, that doesn't make any sense" your reply is "well, I was a Political Science major, so my opinion is better than statistics anyway."
I'm not really sure how else to respond to that politely except with maybe a sigh or a wry smile. I don't really see how you perceive that as me deeply disliking you. But that being said, if it bothers or triggers you, I'll make sure not to express exasperation to you in that fashion again.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm not sure I'm convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Mormons can be rightly called Christians.
What would it take to convince you? The Pope outright stating "I hereby declare that Mormons can rightly be called Christians?" I mean, I'm not convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Baptists or Presbyterians or Anglicans can be called Christians either. Most likely because this would be inappropriate and cause needless strife. As far as I can see, the Vatican has the authority to declare what it means to be a Roman Catholic, but they have no authority or interest in declaring who gets to call themselves a Christian. The only group I've personally experienced that gets really big into defining who gets to be a "real Christian" are Born Again Evangelicals.
That being said, in the official document Kate provided, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI referred to the differences between "Mormon beliefs and mainline Christianity" rather than "Mormon beliefs and Christianity", which is a pretty solid indication that he does, in fact, have no issue with calling Mormons Christians. For example, one wouldn't refer to the differences between "Muslim beliefs and mainline Christianity" in that context.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
It's being able to identify as a Christian without any caveats. At least that matters to me personally.
quote: BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority". [/QB]
Oh, I'm aware. Were you aware that Arianism was prevalent enough that the council was necessary in the first place? And that failure to vote for the creed meant excommunication and exile? No wonder only three held out until the end.
Dogbreath:
quote:That may be what you meant, but you said that you feel that I "deeply dislike" you, talking to me feels like a chore, and that you like me but hate "frustrating people". Did you mean that you hate feeling like you are causing frustration in others?
Yes.
quote:I'm not seeing how you go from "mild exasperation at obstinance" to "deep dislike".
Alright. If I'm getting a different vibe than the one you are sending, what should I be feeling?
quote:I mean, you posted a study that shows a pretty steady decline in the percentage of Mormons who identify as Democrat over the past 20 years accompanied by a corresponding rise in the number who identify as Republican
I saw a rise in Democrats in the 90s to 2000, a drop and then flat. But I also see an increase in those identifying as independent. I also see a drop from 63% GOP in the 90s to 48% today. That's a drop any way you swing it.
quote:And then when confronted with "hey BB, that doesn't make any sense" your reply is "well, I was a Political Science major, so my opinion is better than statistics anyway."
I can see how I may have conveyed that message. What it sounded like to me happened was, "Hey Dogbreath there's increasingly more liberal white Mormons." Which you then said, "No there isn't, I don't know any, and here's some statistics."
I was trying to respond with my own first hand experience of having experienced the group of people we are discussing. If you don't want to believe there are very many liberal white Mormons, I can agree they are still in the minority, but I don't think we are seeing an increase in Mormon enthusiasm for the GOP going forward.
quote:I'm not really sure how else to respond to that politely except with maybe a sigh or a wry smile. I don't really see how you perceive that as me deeply disliking you. But that being said, if it bothers or triggers you, I'll make sure not to express exasperation to you in that fashion again.
I like you Dogbreath. I'm even damned impressed with you. When you tell me *sigh* it comes across you'd rather stop talking because *I'm* too difficult to talk to. If you can refrain from writing out non-verbal language that conveys that message, super cool.
quote:What would it take to convince you? The Pope outright stating "I hereby declare that Mormons can rightly be called Christians?" I mean, I'm not convinced the Catholic church in any official capacity has said Baptists or Presbyterians or Anglicans can be called Christians either. Most likely because this would be inappropriate and cause needless strife. As far as I can see, the Vatican has the authority to declare what it means to be a Roman Catholic, but they have no authority or interest in declaring who gets to call themselves a Christian. The only group I've personally experienced that gets really big into defining who gets to be a "real Christian" are Born Again Evangelicals.
That being said, in the official document Kate provided, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI referred to the differences between "Mormon beliefs and mainline Christianity" rather than "Mormon beliefs and Christianity", which is a pretty solid indication that he does, in fact, have no issue with calling Mormons Christians. For example, one wouldn't refer to the differences between "Muslim beliefs and mainline Christianity" in that context.
Maybe a complete end to the debate, "Are Mormons Christian?"
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure I am convinced that the Catholic Church, in any official capacity, has said that they can't.
I am also not sure exactly what your grievance is here. You have rules for baptism; we have rules for baptism. You have specific Christology; we have specific Christology. That those are incompatible should not be an issue as we have different religions.
It's being able to identify as a Christian without any caveats. At least that matters to me personally.
Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
quote:
quote: BTW, just one point of information you might find useful. Earlier in the discussion you noted that you, "...find it more than a little annoying that a group of men living centuries after Christ get to define what the Bible means and what it means to get to be called Christian. Particularly when you consider that many of these major decisions came down to who had a slightly bigger majority at the time." On the question of the nature of Christ during the First Council of Nicea, of the 250-318 attending only 3 did not accept the Creed. Somewhat more than a "slightly bigger majority".
Oh, I'm aware. Were you aware that Arianism was prevalent enough that the council was necessary in the first place? And that failure to vote for the creed meant excommunication and exile? No wonder only three held out until the end.
Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
BB, it isn't your religion. Your religion believes something else and that is okay. You can do that without being exiled now. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
quote:Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
You don't understand why a council that ultimately is an indispensable reason for why the church I belong to has never been considered Christian by a majority of other Christians matters?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Alright. If I'm getting a different vibe than the one you are sending, what should I be feeling?
The problem is I'm not really sure what vibe you're getting. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't said anything remotely rude to you, have been pretty calm and balanced with my approach, and have tried to couch everything I've said in neutral or placating language. By which I mean, if I were trying to convey a tone, it would be friendly and amicable - which is what I inferred the tone of this discussion to be. There hasn't been much in the way of heated debate, or "yelling", or any insults or slights to speak of and then, *BAM*, seemingly out of nowhere you say you're getting a vibe I strongly dislike you and I have no idea why. Which is why I've asked you to quantify what it is exactly that makes you feel that way.
quote:I can see how I may have conveyed that message. What it sounded like to me happened was, "Hey Dogbreath there's increasingly more liberal white Mormons." Which you then said, "No there isn't, I don't know any, and here's some statistics."
That much is false, I never said that. I know a number of liberal White Mormons.
quote:I was trying to respond with my own first hand experience of having experienced the group of people we are discussing. If you don't want to believe there are very many liberal white Mormons, I can agree they are still in the minority, but I don't think we are seeing an increase in Mormon enthusiasm for the GOP going forward.
That's the problem. I wasn't saying "you don't know loads of liberal White Mormons", I was disagreeing with your assessment that the number of them is increasing and has been for a while. Notably, you didn't say "the number of Mormons who identify as Republican is decreasing." That being said, if what you're claiming is that you're meeting more and more liberal White Mormons - sure, that's fine, I have no doubt that you are.
quote:Maybe a complete end to the debate, "Are Mormons Christian?"
That debate wasn't started by the Roman Catholic Church, though, and I doubt them being involved would end it.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
32% say no. That's just Americans, of course. (And not all Americans are Christian - but enough that I don't think it would skew the numbers dramatically if you factor out non-Christians. But even assuming Christians surveyed would be more likely to say no, it's not enough to turn 32% into a "large majority")
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like, literally if 0% of the non-Christians surveyed said "no", that would mean that only 45% of American Christians said "no." (Going at the conservative estimate of slightly more than 70% of Americans are Christian - again, from Pew)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
quote:Yes, of course I am. There was a question. A presbyter started preaching a certain doctrine which spread. It started to cause disruption so a council was called. It was debated and there was a decision on what the Church doctrine was. Those who did not believe that doctrine were considered not to belong to the group that defined itself by believing those things. I do not get where you are getting the information that it was a slight majority. I also don't get why it matters to you.
You don't understand why a council that ultimately is an indispensable reason for why the church I belong to has never been considered Christian by a majority of other Christians matters?
No. Our beliefs which were (and still are being) codified at that and many other councils and your beliefs which are incompatible with ours are the reason why some Christians may not consider you Christian. You may just as well blame your own doctrine as ours. If you think blame needs to happen.
posted
This is an extremely interesting thread! I'm going to make sure I read carefully back through the whole thing though, before I feel any need to chime in :-)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, who is stopping you? Even if the Church had said you are are not, the Catholic Church is not the boss of you. Nor are various online answer groups.
And here we go full circle. I'd be willing to be $1M that if you polled Christians and asked if Mormons are also Christian, a large majority would say no.
32% say no. That's just Americans, of course. (And not all Americans are Christian - but enough that I don't think it would skew the numbers dramatically if you factor out non-Christians. But even assuming Christians surveyed would be more likely to say no, it's not enough to turn 32% into a "large majority")
I'm pleased to see it seems to be getting better. Growing up, it was pretty clear the other Christians did not consider Mormonism a Christian religion. My school's religious curriculum always made that clear. The (until previously) majority American view that Mormons wouldn't make good presidents. And yes statistics I'd see where Mormons were viewed by the majority as not Christian.
I'd still find it more likely that once we get outside the US, Christians increasingly don't think Mormons are Christian. The US is the birthplace of Mormonism.
quote:No. Our beliefs which were (and still are being) codified at that and many other councils and your beliefs which are incompatible with ours are the reason why some Christians may not consider you Christian. You may just as well blame your own doctrine as ours. If you think blame needs to happen.
It's not that I think blame needs to happen, it's the rationale for why there is even a question as to whether Mormonism is Christian.
Look, I get these councils to you carry great weight, just as the utterances of our modern day prophets and from the Book of Mormon carry great weight. But it would be impossible for us to work from a place of "My folks say this." and get anywhere conclusive. So I'm trying to strip it back to just the things we *do* agree on. Hence my use of the Bible.
Granted we both read the Bible and draw very different conclusions because we go into it with very different assumptions about the nature of God/Man/Devil/Angels/etc.
So what exactly do you feel a spirit is?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Catholicism is not sola scriptura as our doctrine is based on tradition, teaching, and revelation, as well as scripture. It is not just that I place weight on the various councils that have codified tradition and teaching; it is that, for Catholics, the councils are supposed to reflect the revealed doctrine of the Church. They don't always and sometimes they do but the Vatican has its own ideas but disregarding them is like cutting away a leg of a three-legged stool.
I am not sure what you mean by the question of spirit? Do you mean the Holy Spirit? Do you mean souls? Do you mean angels?
I am also not sure what, exactly, you want to accomplish here. Are you trying to convince me that Trinitarian thinking is incorrect?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I'm trying to understand that if there is no pre-existence, then what is man's spirit? I'm trying to understand.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean to suggest that our souls have to pre-exist creation or our life (whenever that starts)? Or do you mean that the Holy Spirit could not have existed without being in human beings so human beings must have pre-existed?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do I get my $1M then?
If you can find a worldwide poll of Christians stating whether Mormons are or are not Christian and show less than a large majority, I suppose.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean to suggest that our souls have to pre-exist creation or our life (whenever that starts)? Or do you mean that the Holy Spirit could not have existed without being in human beings so human beings must have pre-existed?
I'm not talking about the Holy Ghost. Mormons believe men's spirits were created before their physical bodies were. Some elements of who we are were given shape then. Our spirits existed in a pre-mortal realm where God goes, and are sent from that place to Earth. Upon dying their spirits exit their bodies and go elsewhere.
For Catholics, do men have spirits? If so, what are they. When were they created?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Not exactly. "Spirit" has several definitions. One of those could be a non-body part of us. Or it could be the Holy Spirit which is god in us. Or it could merely mean life/breath rather than soul. Or it could be a synonym for soul. Depends on context. It is sometimes used generally rather than specifically.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: After all these years on this board I'm a bit astonished you or any other long time user would ask me that.
And you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. I can admit it's not as lopsided as I'd supposed in the US. It may even be not much different else where. But I'm not convinced it isn't a large majority opinion worldwide.
If I'm wrong, well that's a good thing.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
