The Book of Mormon
discussion
Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?
Haha, thanks Taylor! And I agree with you completely, Maxy. I don't understand why today's religions have to be defined by the opinions of politicians and religous men from centuries ago.
Hello,Very interesting. All I did was ask a question. At no point have I made personal or insulting remarks. If anyone feels that trying to clarify a religion's core beliefs is disrespectful, then why? If, in my opinion, something is not making sense, then I have the right to ask questions. You do NOT have the right to tell me to stop because someone might be offended. What if I told you that Hawaiian shirts offend me? Would you quit wearing them?
For those of you new to the thread, please read the original post at the top. The question posed is "With these major differences at the very root of Mormonism, should this book still be considered a Christian text?"
Please address the items raised.
For those of you posting quotes from the Book of Mormon, please look up "Tautology" in the dictionary.
And since we are quoting doctrines and covenants, lets check out SECTION 132:
" 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/5...
Anyone feel like repudiating THAT? Or has that been changed? Which means Joseph Smith was not channeling the word of God....
If these questions are upsetting you, find out why. What is it that bothers you? It can't be that one person who, according to your own belief, will be burning in Hell writes something on the internets. If you are content in your beliefs, you shouldn't even be on this thread. You're not going to convince me that Eden was in Missouri. Just ignore me. What is it about these questions that sparks such a reaction? Is there something there that just doesn't seem right?
Hugs and Kisses to all,
Monkey
Monkey, if you quote scripture from that link it most certainly has not changed. I have to side with Ashley - what are you asking for to be repudated?Also, who's going to be burning in hell?
Monkey, you claim that you have not made insulting remarks and are merely trying to clarify our belief system. Sorry, but everything you are saying is in a mocking and insulting tone. The words themselves are civil, but pretty much, you're trying to tell us that our religion is wrong. That does offend me, although you're right, it doesn't make me not believe in my church. I just don't understand why having different beliefs than other Christian churches makes us non-Christian.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
There is a difference between "being" Christian (believing in Christ) and "acting" Christian, yes. But the word by definition simply means "believing in Christ." The whole Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ, so I'm confused as to how you can think we aren't Christian.
Alyssa,Why do you feel that I'm trying to tell you something is wrong? I never mentioned anything about right or wrong.
Do you feel that something is wrong? Perhaps the bit above about a guy being able to have ten virgins and it's ok, but if a woman has two guys it's not?
People feel mocked and insulted when things are pointed out that seem obvious to outside observers that they themselves have never examined. Like feeling stupid when you find out you've been walking around all day with your fly open.
It's ok to lash out at me, I'm just a monkey on the internet. But where is your anger coming from? Why is my mere act of asking questions making you so mad?
Examine your belief system. If it's airtight and 100% logical and backed with evidence, shouldn't you be relaxing at a honeybee meeting, and not arguing with the internet?
Best wishes,
Monkey
Thanks for the advice monkey, I guess I should be doing other things than arguing with a rude online person that thinks that they know everything. The fact is that THE MORMON CHURCH IS TRUE. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT. If you're so interested in our church than go to a meeting and actually be quiet. Listen to what we believe in. Pray to what we believe in. Just don't go around wasting your time asking questions to people you don't even know.
Seriously, follow my advice, you might be happier.
-Leesie
Seriously, follow my advice, you might be happier.
-Leesie
Jeniel wrote: "I would like to comment as a member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. I am a christian. I believe in Jesus Christ. I know he is our savior. He paid the price for all of us that..."
I completely agree with Jeniel. Mister Monkey, maybe you should try reading the Book Of Mormon. And talk to the local Missionaries; you might have a change of heart to us Mormons.
I completely agree with Jeniel. Mister Monkey, maybe you should try reading the Book Of Mormon. And talk to the local Missionaries; you might have a change of heart to us Mormons.
Monkey, I'm sorry, but I'm only in high-school and there's a nearby polygamist sect, so my religion is attacked a lot. I just get very sick of it very easily, so I'm sorry if I snapped. I'm just very opinionated about everything, like my religion, and don't like being told that I'm incorrect, lol. I'm angry because some of that is not what we actually believe. I just think that "Christian" is defined by "believing in Christ the Redeemer" and I don't understand why we aren't Christian just because our other beliefs differ from set Christianity of other churches.
Anyhow, there are times where the prophet of God speaks as himself, and not as God's servant. I mean, President Monson has an iPhone. God didn't instruct him to get one, he got one for temporal reasons.
In addition, please provide a bibliography for your comments here. I wish to see the source of your theories. My seminary teacher did research on the Book of Abraham, and they found that it does indeed fit the time period suggested by the seers of modern times.
In addition, please provide a bibliography for your comments here. I wish to see the source of your theories. My seminary teacher did research on the Book of Abraham, and they found that it does indeed fit the time period suggested by the seers of modern times.
I am not one to get into debates or conversation over beliefs, but this is an exception. I believe, with all of my heart, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I believe it, rather, I know it, because of the way I've been challenged in my belief. I have at times questioned the church I belong to, which only made my belief in it stronger. Overall, like others have said, what good is debating the nitty gritty going to do?
I predict you'll say it's because they can't be factually and scientifically proven. To that, I would ask, how do you prove your love for a spouse or the love a mother has for a child?
This debate is based on philosophy and interpretation of the world. We are all entitled to our beliefs. It's a personal choice.
Monkey, these questions are indeniably good questions, but are for the most part irrelevant.
I rest my case, and as I previously stated, I'm not normally one to convict my personal beliefs unless face to face. In that case, I don't expect I'll be posting again.
Also, on a lighter note, Taylor Mefford, your first post made me laugh out loud for a good ten minutes =)
President Monson has an iPhone? He's so cool! :)
Sarah you did a great job answering questions, I read most of your posts. Thank you so much for taking the time, we've got to keep doing what is right, because as both of us know, he will come someday but we have to be ready and waiting, doing the right thing. Anyway thank you again. I will not be posting anything else, but I did want to sat that. You have inspired me to what I can be when I get older ( :~ Monkey we are Christian because we believe and have faith in Jesus Christ, which includes ACTING "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20 KJV) We believe and we act the way we think He would want us to. That is why we are Christians.
I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true and He WILL come, I have no doubt.
Sara ♥ wrote: "President Monson has an iPhone? He's so cool! :)"He totally is!
True believers,Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that an alien from Alpha Centauri has landed, and meets up with some Mormon missionaries (if they haven't made it to Alpha Centauri yet).
They give him the Book of Mormon, and he pops it into to his Scan-O-matic (TM) and assimilates all the info. He looks around.
"OK," he says, "good story, let's see some proof."
"Well," the missionaries say, "you're holding it"
"What, this book? I've assimilated the Koran, the Dao te Ching, the Maharabata and Dianetics. Your chronicle does not match up with their accounts. Do you have any evidence that this is the correct one?"
"What do you mean?" say the earnest duo.
"Well, it speaks of golden tablets, lets see those."
"Ummm, they were taken up. They're not around anymore."
"OK," he scratches his noses, "how about the spectacles and breastplate. If I can translate those old books I found on Mars, that would be something..."
"No, well, yet again, not around."
"This isn't looking so good."
"Wait!" says the smaller of the LDS missionaries, "The Book of Abraham!"
"The what?"
"We have some papyri, physical evidence, written by Abraham himself vindicating our position!"
"Let's see it" the visitor says. It is duly handed over and examined.
"You guys realize that this papyrus is only about 2000 years old. And your translation is WAY off, like not even close."
"Ahh, but God INSPIRED him through this papyrus."
"So, if your God inspired me to interpret it as a new Hardy Boys novel, that would be ok?"
"..."
"Errrr," our visitors tentacles quiver with frustration, "Look, here's an easy one: Have you tested the DNA of the Native Americans? If that matches up with Semitic DNA, you have something there."
"We did that!"
"And?"
"Umm, it didn't match up, as such." says one missionary.
"It COULD be that the genes were diluted!" says the other.
"Diluted with what" says the alien. "DNA doesn't dilute like it's water. This isn't a borax solution, this is the code of life! Come on people, show me SOMETHING."
So here is the question: What would you show him?
I'm on this site because I like to read. A lot. Name a book and I'll read it. I'm old, and have read many things (yes, the Book of Mormon, so quit the straw man arguments). My questions about the contradictions in LDS don't come from anger or snootiness, as my detractors would like to say to try and easily dismiss me (thus ignoring my points). My questions are the product of my curiosity and a sense of logic that was bothered by some of the claims made.
To be fair, I have similar problems with Islam (why all the hadiths? Mohammad never said hadiths were cool), Catholicism (Why all the gold and expensive art? Don't you believe that a rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel does of going through the eye of a needle?) and all other religions claiming supernatural authority.
People use phrases like "seers of modern times" and that, to me, is not proof. Proof is empirical: the same for everyone. It's something you can show to a space alien with no cultural references and he/she can understand it. Our brains can be fooled by optical illusions and other tricks (read "Rationally Irrational". GREAT book.), and we need to pare things down to what is constant, unchanging and testable.
I've been a seeker of the truth for decades. I've seen a lot, but the one thing I have never seen is evidence of God.
Anyone who can show me that? I'll publicly and loudly convert right here on this thread.
Empirical proof, folks, not cut-and-paste from lds.org.
Looking forward to hearing your proof.
Monkey
Oh, and (PS) Alyssa,
Why do people make fun of polygamist LDS? Isn't that in the Doctorines and Covinents?
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/5...
Jayda says "if you quote scripture from that link it most certainly has not changed."
I mean, I don't agree with the misogynist treatment of women that has gone on since its inception, but I have to give begrudging credit to people who have beliefs and don't change them for any reason like (for instance) to get statehood. They might be marrying 14 year olds (Helen Mar Kimball anyone?), but the one thing they have going for them is that they aren't hypocrites...
Lindsey wrote: "You have inspired me to what I can be when I get older (:"Careful what you wish for! You may become an early-morning seminary teacher like me! ;)
-------------
These "spectacles and breastplate" of which you speak are called the Urim and Thummim. They're in the Old Testament, too.
Aliens? Really? *rolls her eyes* They're just a representation of YOU, so what's the point of that?
-------------
Monkey wrote: "I've been a seeker of the truth for decades. I've seen a lot, but the one thing I have never seen is evidence of God.
Anyone who can show me that? I'll publicly and loudly convert right here on this thread."
No you wouldn't. You could see an angel tomorrow and have that angel tell you that he comes from God to testify to you of God's existence, and you still wouldn't believe. You're missing the whole point, Monkey. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things (or to have 100% solid, concrete, empirical evidence). Faith is having a hope for things which you can't see, but which you believe to be true. Without faith, you wouldn't believe, even if there WAS evidence. The Jews at the time of Christ saw Him, witnessed the incredible miracles He performed, heard His testimony of His Father (God, and look that ended! They were EYE-WITNESSES — they had first-hand evidence. But they DIDN'T believe because they never bothered to obtain FAITH... and then they killed Jesus Christ.
Faith comes first, and THEN the evidence. As the last Book of Mormon prophet Moroni said (Ether 12:6), "I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." THAT is what I believe. And THAT is where you're falling short, Monkey. You want the proof first, but that's not how God works. And HE is the one who makes the rules... not you, sorry.
For those of us who have faith — who are willing to believe because of the distinct and undeniable feeling that comes from the Holy Ghost after reading the Book of Mormon and sincerely praying to know whether or not it is true — who feel that same feeling again and again as we read our scriptures and attend our church meetings and sing hymns of praise to God, etc. — we SEE evidence of God around us. We see it everywhere. I feel like I should echo Alma the Younger... what he told Korihor, the anti-Christ in Alma 30:44. "Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." ALL THINGS testify there is a God. But you have to have faith to see those things for what they TRULY are.
I hope that someday you'll believe. But I doubt that day will result from THIS conversation. That day will come when you humble yourself and muster up a teeny tiny particle of faith and really put the Book of Mormon to the test by SINCERELY praying about it, really believing that God will answer your prayer. He will. I know it because He answered mine.
I said I wouldn't post again, but I can't help it. Sara, I'm not sure anyone could have said it better. You really hit the nail on the head.
And I'm sure you make one amazing seminary teacher!
Oh gosh... I try... And speaking of that, I gotta get back to my lesson for tomorrow... Mormon 7-8... ;)
Sara, I have to say that you're doing EXTREMELY well! I enjoy reading your response because you're so amazingly calm :)Actually, the Adam-God Theory was indeed spoken about by President Brigham Young.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html
I haven't read all of the sources, but since I'm pretty sure most/all of the talks/FAQs/ETC on here are from General Authorities they should be pretty accurate, and the website is all about defending our religion.
It all depends on what source you get the information on the subject from on what it sounds/seems like. Thus, why people take it the wrong way or get confused by it.
Monkey, to answer your question, the polygamist sect near my high school isn't LDS. Mormons aren't polygamists. But anyway, people at my school are very degrading to any student from the polygamist community and to the Mormons, because they don't like polygamy. I don't really understand why they're so insulting, to be honest, but they won't bother to figure out the truth.And Sara, you're awesome!
Alyssa,Mormons aren't polygamists NOW, but they WERE. I don't care who anyone marries, that's between two or more consenting, legal adults. My point was that the Mormons who still practice the principal of polygamy are not hypocrites. They are adhering to the teachings of Joseph Smith: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/5...
Sara,
”Aliens? Really? *rolls her eyes* They're just a representation of YOU, so what's the point of that?”
No, they are representations of beings without cultural
Belief in the many gods is culturally specific. It envisages the believer as a participant in a bigger, grander play. When Jesus says "you believe in God, believe also in me" he is not inviting his followers to believe that someone or other exists. Your distinctively Abrahamic spirituality frames how the members of a "faith community" together confront mortality, the contingencies of life and their own treacherous and mutual duality, a human duality acted out in the behavior of individuals and institutions and at once inspiring and infecting all the religious traditions.
”The Jews at the time of Christ saw Him ... and then they killed Jesus Christ.”
That’s some serious anti-Semitism. Is that common in Mormonism?
”Faith comes first, and THEN the evidence.”
Errr, no. I have evidence of Newtonian physics. Are you saying that if I believe I can fly, then all I have to do is pull up on my shoestrings and I’ll float into the sky? Ridiculous. Evidence always comes first. Otherwise, you just find what you are expecting to find.
Seriously, so the Hindu who believes in Saraswati and finds evidence of her existence is JUST as valid as your belief? Atman and Yahweh are equally valid?
And remember, quoting from the Book of Mormon to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon is circular reasoning!
Best of luck,
Monkey
Monkey, I have read every comment and see that you have very good questions. I understand why you question some things and I appreciate Sara's answers about the church. The last point you made is a little off and I just wanted to make it clear. True followers of the LDS church today do not practice polygamy anymore. So that's out. The FLDS church, which practices polygamy, is not affiliated with the LDS church. As for proof for the validity of the Book of Mormon, I recently watched a video that may be interesting for you, aliens, or anyone:
http://defendingldtruth.weebly.com/ha...
I don't know if that is a good enough example for "proof" but unless Joseph Smith had the DeLorean or any other type of time machine, there are things that would be impossible for him to know.
I am LDS and even though I don't know everything about our church, I am still learning and still have a lot to learn. (Also trying to learn and understand other churches) I have an open mind but I have had many personal experiences that keep my faith to our church. Personally, what I believe in is that whether you're a Mormon, Buddhist, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Googlist, or an Atheist or blah blah blah, no one has the right to attack anyone's personal beliefs. (I'm not saying you are) I also believe there is a God and that there is so much we cannot comprehend right now. Living in Utah, I see how people can be very judgemental and narrow minded about other beliefs. But really, it doesn't hurt to question anything because that is the best we can do-
learn what we can, pray or think about it, and have faith.
Stay humble,
Nicolie
”Faith comes first, and THEN the evidence.” Is there proof of the Big Bang? Is there evidence of YOUR brain?
Monkey, I also agree iwth Leesie. The image is the likeness not a mortal being. It is not supposed to be taken tactically or literally. Nancee J. Swartz
Monkey,First, the term Christian is a biblical term which the Bible nowhere defines specifically. It was actually a pejorative, applied by critics to those who believed in Christ and followed his teachings. As these adherents found no shame in such a term they adopted it.
Modern use of the term is hardly of any use in your exclusionary crusade either. The definition of the term adequately provides for the inclusion of LDS Christianity within the broader Christian community.
Try reading the classic _Are Mormons Christians?_ (ISBN 1-57008-409-2) by Stephen E. Robinson or _Offenders for a Word_ (ISBN 0-934893-35-7) by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks which directly respond to such absurd accusations.
You are attempting to define the term in a very myopic manner (i.e. LDS Christianity must conform to some theological litmus in order to be accepted as Christian) but the problem is that there is no regulatory agency out there approving or denying membership in the larger Christian community. If your only point is that LDS Christianity is not historically orthodox, creedal Christianity than it is a brilliant although obvious assessment.
Regarding your 8 points:
"1. God was once a man who lived on another planet."
That is indeed one understanding of Joseph's April 7, 1844 discourse. Of course, it oversimplifies the matter. I have studied the discourse in detail (including the original accounts amalgamated to arrive at the version you reference) and I believe that it says nothing more than that God is in form a man but that any mortality he experienced previous to His Godhood was like that of Jesus.
"2. We are co-eternal with God."
Another statement from the King Follett Discourse. This material is hardly canonical. Nevertheless, in general the LDS view of mankind is far more positive than the conceptions of many other Christian’s.
"3. The origin of Jesus Christ."
This is utterly false. Although some LDS authors have hinted at this conception LDS canonical sources firmly state that Mary was a virgin. Robinson does a fabulous job of answering this matter in _How Wide the Divide?_ (ISBN 0-8308-1991-6), p. 135. That Jesus was indeed the divine offspring of God and Mary need not imply anything as base as you imply.
"6. Saving dead ancestors."
A belief with biblical support. Hardly outside the realm of "Christian” and even supported by other obviously Christian scholars.
"7. Adam is God."
Another anti-Mormon chestnut. No, Mormons do not believe Adam is God. It is even unclear if Brigham thought Adam was God. In the end we have no idea what Brigham really meant (he is unavailable for clarification) but the anti-Mormon view that he meant Adam and God the Father are one in the same is obviously contrary to LDS belief and so regardless of whether Brigham may have believed such LDS Christians do not.
"8. LDS leaders have taught that Jesus is a polygamist."
LDS leaders have taught quite a lot of things, that doesn't make them canonical and the actual implications of many are unclear. One can choose to accept or reject much of it and still remain mainstream LDS.
As Stephen Robinson has written "Most of the anti-Mormon rhetoric coming from Evangelical [or any other:] circles focuses on the Journal of Discourses rather [than:] on our scriptures--on what one or another nineteenth-century Mormon may have believed instead of what all twentieth-century Mormons must believe." (HWTD, p. 73, brackets mine)
Matthew,Aside from your false assumptions as to my motives for asking philosophical questions, your reply seems to indicate that the definition of "Christian" is an open one, with the only necessary codicil being that one accept the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene.
Here is my question: Many Hindus believe that Jesus was an avatar of Atman, sent to earth just as Krishna or Rama or was.
Are they, too, Christian?
If your answer is no, please give reasons why.
Best wishes,
Monkey
P.S : Mason,
There is plenty of empirical "Big Bang" proof. I know it's a bit more complicated than "God done it," but it is good for us to exercise our minds.
1. Galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law". This means that they were once all compacted together.
2. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. This is what happens when things expand.
3. There is a lot of Hydrogen and Helium found in observable universe, which fits into the theory that 20-30% of the universe would be these light elements if the Big Bang theory were true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang...
Monkey wrote: "Jeniel,How can these comments do your belief an injustice? ALL the quotes are from the books held sacred by your church, and the summaries of practices by the Mormon church are all accurate, if ..."
well, im sorry but you r wrong about this. Adam is not a god. he was just part of gods plans. no where in the book of mormon does it say that adam is a god. so ur "Accuracy" is wrong.
Monkey wrote: "Keith, The name of the church has nothing do to with it. I could call my poodle-worshiping church "The Church of Buddha of Suburbia" and that would NOT make me Buddhist. I'm not talking about ..."
i would appreciate it if u just didnt talk about our church if u r going to spread lies about us.
Monkey wrote: "Sara,Ahhh, the old saw, "You can't prove there ISN'T a god...."
Yes, and YOU can't prove there isn't a Zeus, or Shiva.... or Spider-Man, or Unicorns.... (See the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory)..."
Have u ever heard of FAITH! well that means to know something is true without proof. do u believe in JEsus? HAve u Ever Met him? Well, if u believe in him, thenn u have faith, so why cant we? Thats kinda hypocritical!
Monkey wrote: "Sara,Ahhh, the old saw, "You can't prove there ISN'T a god...."
Yes, and YOU can't prove there isn't a Zeus, or Shiva.... or Spider-Man, or Unicorns.... (See the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory)..."
Have u ever heard of FAITH! well that means to know something is true without proof. do u believe in JEsus? HAve u Ever Met him? Well, if u believe in him, thenn u have faith, so why cant we? Thats kinda hypocritical!
Monkey wrote: "True believers,Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that an alien from Alpha Centauri has landed, and meets up with some Mormon missionaries (if they haven't made it to Alpha Centauri ye..."
we do not practice polygamy! Gosh! have u ever read the Book of Mormon! we r supposed to obey the laws of the land and polygamy is illegal. maybe if you stopped reading I HAte Mormon sites, then maybe youd be able to read wihoout trying to tell us we r wrong! seriously! im 15 and i am smarter then you! i am not trying to be mean, but you should try to read the book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price. maybe one day you will understand that we have a choice about what we believe, and that u cant tell us that what we believe is wrong, umless u r personally getting hurt and offended by us. maybe if you tried to make good choices, then maybe your heart will open up:(
Monkey wrote: "True believers,Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that an alien from Alpha Centauri has landed, and meets up with some Mormon missionaries (if they haven't made it to Alpha Centauri ye..."
we do not practice polygamy! Gosh! have u ever read the Book of Mormon! we r supposed to obey the laws of the land and polygamy is illegal. maybe if you stopped reading I HAte Mormon sites, then maybe youd be able to read wihoout trying to tell us we r wrong! seriously! im 15 and i am smarter then you! i am not trying to be mean, but you should try to read the book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price. maybe one day you will understand that we have a choice about what we believe, and that u cant tell us that what we believe is wrong, umless u r personally getting hurt and offended by us. maybe if you tried to make good choices, then maybe your heart will open up:(
Hello everyone who is LDS that has commented on this paper, I agree with monkey, the LDS church is not Christian, many LDS members, however are, this is because many Mormons don't even believe a lot of what the LDS church teaches. Take Lexi for example she believes that God does not have a body of flesh and bone, yet if you look on lds.org you see that it "unofficially" teaches that. Notice how I said unofficially, thats because according to LDS apologists the LDS church is non-creedal, meaning it has no official doctrine. So why they bother teaching anything is beyond me, they might as well just call themselves a social club or something.
Keith wrote: "Wow you're pretty sharp with the contemp. i really do admire your passion. You wanted to know if mormons were christian. I thought I answered that by explaning who i pray to regardless of other pra..."Mason I would like to point out that the 13 articles of faith do not point out the basic beliefs of Mormonism at least not all of them, they fail to point out there beliefs about Jesus, the nature of God, how they believe we are saved, what they believe about heaven, hell and angels and what they believe about eternal progression.
Oh and did I mention that the LDS church also teaches that you have to pay 10% of your income in order to become a god? Sounds like a scam to me.
Monkey,Ah, but the body of your initial post does not merely pose questions also contains an implicit argument. One of the first things one is taught to recognize in basic philosophical instruction is the implicit as well as the explicit. You may explicitly ask “Are they?” and “With these major differences at the very root of Mormonism, should this book still be considered a Christian text?” but the body of your post indicates you have already arrived at a conclusion.
Further, based upon your implicit argument the issue isn't philosophical per se but primarily theological. It involves conformity to historically orthodox tenants and/or departure there from.
I see two primary problems with your questions:
1. The form of the question itself assumes a priori a definition of the term “Christian” which is the very matter under dispute. If indeed being “Christian” is defined as conformity with “basic tenets” of mainstream, historically orthodox creedal Christians then the question assumes the very matter it is questioning. It’s called a circular argument or begging the question and it’s logically fallacious.
2. Your initial question, “Are they?” specifically addresses the issue of “Mormons” and whether they are “Christians,” but the latter is a Red Herring. The issue of Mormon’s and their claim to being Christians is entirely separate from whether “this book [The Book of Mormon, should:] still be considered a Christian text?” The book itself contains none of the 8 items you outline and so they would be immaterial in assessing it as a “Christian text.” You would first have to define what constitutes a “Christian text” and then demonstrate that the Book of Mormon departs from this definition.
So there are some primary questions that need answering before we get into whether “Mormons” are Christians and whether the Book of Mormon is a “Christian text.” They are simply, what is a Christian? And, what is a “Christian text?”
As an aside, I don’t think I was mistaken about your “motives” so I do not think any apology is necessary. You are not some objective observer attempting to assess whether “Mormons” and their texts are entitled to the label Christian. Rather, you have already determined that neither “Mormons” nor their texts deserve to be called Christian.
You responded:
“your reply seems to indicate that the definition of ‘Christian’ is an open one, with the only necessary codicil being that one accept the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene.”
Perhaps you should go back and take another look for you “seem” to have missed quite a lot. I explicitly stated that the term was originally employed as a pejorative for believers in Christ. Seeing it no insult to be called what they indeed were, early “Christians” accepted the title. Of course, as Stephen Robinson writes “The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16), but it is not defined in any of these passages.” So although they adopted the term, they nowhere defined how they understood it.
So, is the standard of who is and is not Christian to be established on the beliefs of those who were originally tarred with the favorably received epithet Christian?
I further appealed to modern definitions of the term. Let’s take a standard one like Merriam-Webster’s:
“1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
“2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress”
Precisely how does professing “belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” compare to belief in “Jesus” as “an avatar of Atman?” Jesus taught more than merely that He was an “avatar of Atman.” He claimed to be the Son of God! He claimed to be the one and only Son of God in the flesh. Rather an exclusionary claim which clearly would preclude him from inclusion in the austere ranks of the avatars Krishna and Rama. As C.S. Lewis aptly put it:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
This has been called Lewis’ trilemma: liar, lunatic, or Lord. Of course, this is not to say that there aren’t other options one could explore but as it concerns accepting Jesus’ teachings, no, Hindu’s would not be considered Christian as they do not accept Jesus’ teachings.
So, assuming you will want me to define these terms, I would accept Merriam-Webster’s definition, “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ” or a “disciple” (i.e. “one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another” or “a convinced adherent of a school or individual”). As to “Christian texts” I would define such as a text which likewise professes the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Using either of these definitions both “Mormons” and the Book of Mormon are Christian.
Regards,
Matt
Monkey, I believe you titled this discussion incorrectly. Instead of "Is Mormonism a from of Christianity?" it should of read "Is Mormonism true?" You have pulled out many things from the Journal of Discourses (which has not been canonized), and have done little research of your own on the other topics you bring up. The topic has veered far away from "What is Christianity?"Deciding which religion is true is a very personal decision. You will have no empirical proof. And that is why you will forever be searching for the truth.
Benjamin, your comments confuse me. There is a lot of official doctrine. And the 13 Articles of Faith hit most of the major tenets. They are a starting point, not the entire doctrine. As for tithing, please name a church that never asks for donations. They all need money to operate, have activities, and hopefully care for the poor and help the community.
Benjamin,Your are of course free to agree or disagree with Monkey but interestingly in doing so you have made my point. Monkey is not asking, he is arguing for a particular position which I would jolly well like to see proven. You, like Monkey, assume the very issue being contested and therefore your argument falls flat on its face.
You wrote:
“many Mormons don't even believe a lot of what the LDS church teaches.”
Precisely what is the belief in contention here? That God is corporeal? This is canonical and therefore isn’t negotiable I am afraid: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). But guess what; even orthodox Christianity is bent over a barrel on this one. The Son was clearly corporeal both pre and post-incarnate and there is no indication whatsoever that He ever abandoned his corporeality. So God, at least in the person on the Son, is indeed corporeal even from an orthodox perspective.
“Take Lexi for example she believes that God does not have a body of flesh and bone, yet if you look on lds.org you see that it "unofficially" teaches that.”
No, it doesn’t “‘unofficially’” teach that, it officially teaches that. If it’s canonical it’s official. In fact, that’s as official as it gets unless it's a declaration released under the signatures of the First Presidency and the Twelve and then accepted by common consent as a guide in faith and doctrine during General Conference (which is what the Standard Works have been accepted as). That means that if it’s in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price it is indeed official.
“Notice how I said unofficially, thats because according to LDS apologists the LDS church is non-creedal, meaning it has no official doctrine.”
To say that LDS Christianity (and yes, I will declare it such until it is demonstrated otherwise) is “non-creedal” is not to state that is does not have a set of beliefs and that those beliefs are not defined by someone or something. I am one of those “LDS apologists” and I have read the writings of and know personally quite a few others and none would equate being “non-creedal” with having “no official doctrine.” Of course there is “official doctrine.”
Odd in fact that you should claim that LDS Christianity has “no official doctrine” and then respond to Mason “that the 13 articles of faith do not point out the basic beliefs of Mormonism.” If there is nothing official or elemental how can there be anything “basic” either? You obviously accept that there is some “basic” conception which defines one as “Mormon.”
The Articles of Faith, originally part of Joseph’s response to John Wentworth, were never intended to be an exhaustive recitation of all LDS beliefs. Rather, they form an apt summary of major tenants of belief.
Your objection to tithing (10%) is absurd. Tithing is biblical and tithes and offerings are ubiquitous in religious circles. If indeed the standard of one’s Christianity is to be the lack of any offerings then such a sweeping standard dismisses more than merely LDS Christianity from the fold. Stay consistent please.
Regards,
Matt
Monkey wrote: ”The Jews at the time of Christ saw Him ... and then they killed Jesus Christ.”That’s some serious anti-Semitism. Is that common in Mormonism?
”Faith comes first, and THEN the evidence.”
Errr, no. I have evidence of Newtonian physics. Are you saying that if I believe I can fly, then all I have to do is pull up on my shoestrings and I’ll float into the sky? Ridiculous. Evidence always comes first. Otherwise, you just find what you are expecting to find.."
"Anti-Semitism" indicates hostility or hatred toward Jewish people (either Jewish by ethnicity or religion). Christ's death occurred nearly 2000 years ago. I'm over it. I was just stating fact.
The WORLD (read: science) teaches us we need evidence first. But that's not how SPIRITUAL knowledge comes. Turns out God's ways and the world's ways are not the same. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
Benjamin wrote: "Take Lexi for example she believes that God does not have a body of flesh and bone, yet if you look on lds.org you see that it "unofficially" teaches that. Notice how I said unofficially, thats because according to LDS apologists the LDS church is non-creedal, meaning it has no official doctrine. So why they bother teaching anything is beyond me, they might as well just call themselves a social club or something. "What are you talking about? God DOES have a body of flesh and bone. (Not flesh and BLOOD, however... perhaps you confused the two?) And the Church DEFINITELY teaches that. In fact, the scripture Matthew quoted, D&C 130:22, is one of the 25 scriptures deemed most important for youth of the church to be familiar with.
I don't like the term "LDS apologists." Who are these people who feel they need to apologize for what they believe? Whoever they are, they must be smoking something (which totally goes against the Word of Wisdom, by the way), because we DEFINITELY have official doctrine. The Church hasn't made an official statement about every hot topic there is (evolution is one of the topics the Church (as a whole) remains silent about), but we've got official doctrine coming out our ears.
Benjamin wrote: "Oh and did I mention that the LDS church also teaches that you have to pay 10% of your income in order to become a god? Sounds like a scam to me."
In order to become a god, you have to obey God's commandments, one of which is paying tithing—a commandment that has been around since Old Testament times. Certainly it takes faith to pay it, because WOW, everyone could use a little more money, but paying tithing brings great blessings, just as the Lord promised in Malachi 3:8-10.
Sara,You commented:
"I don't like the term 'LDS apologists.' Who are these people who feel they need to apologize for what they believe?"
I can understand your confusion. However, the term "apologists" refers to "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." It stems from the Latin apologia which is derived from the Greek apologia. Essentially it is "a defense especially of one's opinions, position, or actions."
True, apologize is indeed to offer an apology which can be "a formal justification" but can also be "an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret." I think it is the latter you are worried about. Suffice to say that LDS apologists are not doing that. Rather, we offer a defense, a well-reasoned argument (argument in the philosophical sense of a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition) for a given position which is under criticism.
Peter, chief of Jesus' apostles, in his first general epistle encouraged the Church to be "be ready always to give ban answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:15) The word translated as "answer" is the Greek work apologia which is "verbal defence, speech in defence; a reasoned statement or argument."
Of course Peter also encouraged us to do so "with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (Ibid, v. 15-16) So we should seek to have a "good conversation in Christ."
I hope that makes more sense. I consider myself an LDS apologist and I do not believe as Benjamin indicates (as I have written above) and no LDS apologist of my acquaintance does either. He is just plain mistaken.
Regards,
Matt
Oooh... my bad! That's what I get for using google to look up etymologies and not an ACTUAL dictionary... ;)
Benjamin wrote: "Hello everyone who is LDS that has commented on this paper, I agree with monkey, the LDS church is not Christian, many LDS members, however are, this is because many Mormons don't even believe a lo..."well, President Thomas S. Monson spoke on Easter morning. you should read it. its true and i know that my church is the true church. i am proud of my church, and no we do not teach that gad once had flesh and bones. we teach that we are created in his image.
Benjamin wrote: "Oh and did I mention that the LDS church also teaches that you have to pay 10% of your income in order to become a god? Sounds like a scam to me."No that is not true. i would really appreciate that you wouldn't tell people that. so you know when natural disasters happen, our 10% goes to things like Haiti. or even Hurricane Katrina. and we don't pay 10 % of our income to become a god. that just and outright lie. we have a choice about whether we want to pay or not. we are not forced, and we get to make our own choices.
Noel wrote: "and we don't pay 10 % of our income to become a god. that just and outright lie. we have a choice about whether we want to pay or not. we are not forced, and we get to make our own choices."It's not an "outright lie". It's just a gross over-simplification. Technically it's true... No, you don't HAVE to pay tithing, obviously. No one holds you down and steals money out of your wallet, but if you want to qualify for godhood (highest degree of Celestial Kingdom), you have to receive the temple ordinances.... and in order to go to the temple, you have to be a full tithe payer... thus TECHNICALLY, you COULD say that you have to pay tithing to become a god... but WOW, there's just so much more to it than that. Like faith in God, for instance!
Benjamin wrote: "Oh and did I mention that the LDS church also teaches that you have to pay 10% of your income in order to become a god? Sounds like a scam to me."Uh, not true, actually. That's called tithing, and it's not required. Also, NONE of that money goes to any church leaders. It goes to helping missionaries, humanitarian projects, and building churches and temples.
Sara ♥ wrote: "Noel wrote: "and we don't pay 10 % of our income to become a god. that just and outright lie. we have a choice about whether we want to pay or not. we are not forced, and we get to make our own cho..."she makes a valid point.
she makes a valid point.
Matthew wrote: "Benjamin,Your are of course free to agree or disagree with Monkey but interestingly in doing so you have made my point. Monkey is not asking, he is arguing for a particular position which I wou..."
Matthew
Well yes I accept the idea that the Son has a body of flesh and bones but not the Father. And what did I ever claim to be asking questions here, I was totally open to the fact that I agreed with and was arguing for a specific point of view. And by the way, I wasn't just making up the unofficial doctrine stuff, multiple LDS apologists from fair told me that. Don't believe me ask them if the church has any official doctrine, and I guarantee you they will say no. My point is that the church does have official doctrine they just deny that they do, and claim that they don't, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Miracles (other topics)The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
We have taken upon the name of Christ. We are Christian.