History of Religion question [Archive]

Andy Lang

12-18-2001, 05:58 PM

It took hundreds of years before the followers of Christ decided it was a new religion.

Some scholars belive that Christ never intended to start a new religion at all, but call attention to the hypocrisy of hard-right Jewish factions.

Other scholars believe that there never was the Christ of the New Testament at all, and have a lot of evidence to show this--including some 19 different Christs--all of whom the ones who created the new religion took something from and made up the rest--such as the rising from the dead and the various other miracles.

Still other Scholars believe that there was a single Christ that those who created Christianity patterned the Messiah after, but still made up nearly all of thew stories about.

As for me--The Life of Brian pretty much captures it (did you know George Harrison financed this funny movie?)--and the books, Hitler's Pope and Papal Sin, pretty much nail the Catholic Church's perfidy (at least frrom the mid-1800s) and dilemma--one which it seems they cannot ever resolve.

The reason they cannot is the same reason that most 'established religions' cannot: To survive they must be transparent and accountable, and they are instead opague and accountble only to God, who never seems to make an appearance so we can vote for him.

In other words, they must become a democracy--and this would destroy the 'priesthood'.

In fact, all organizations must become democracies--from nations to Enron and all other businesses to Islam and all religions to any organization that has a 'public' to serve--even this tiny profession.

If they want to work well, that is.

The worst ones are always the most secretive and if you scratch it just a bit, you usually find power is the reason, and if you go just a tad deeper, you find Filthy Lucre--and cpmbine thsoe with fear, and got the whole shebang.

When GW Bush pushed his 'faith-based initiative' he received a lot of flack first from the Mormons about giving any federal tax dollars to phony cults, like the Hare Krishnas or The Church of Scientology and then when the Catholic Church said that the Mormons were a 'cult' and Bush was prodded by the Separation of Church and State folks into taking the position that any 'Church', as a minimum would have to both say they couldn't proseltize and also had to open their books to federal inspection, the Mormons said no way Jose, and bugged out of that and also the closely related attempts to get religion in schools and get rid of support for public schools with charter schools. (now the GOP is hard at work getting trying their best to privatize public schools, by having strong links to Edison for example.)

So the Mormons do not want to open their books--eyyy? Might find some Olympic dough there perhaps--or maybe some profitable businesses--very profitable ones. Hey take 10% a year tithing from 15 million hard-working folks, invest it partly in hard assets and financial assets and the rest in getting more 'believers', make it all tax deferred and tax free and you got some bonanza on your hands.

Hey, lets get the Catholic Church to open it's books. What fun that would be--an audit of its vast holdings would be something.

But you can put all those bones and bodies and relics in a huge pile as they have little monetary value. Toss in that phony cloth with Christ's image too.

Do include all the gold and silver and stocks and property and cash, and those magnificent works of art though. I'll bet if you add all that up and divide by all the Cardinals and Bishops (ok, ok include the priests too--no nuns though--they havre zero power)you will get a per capita number so high it is greater than the GNP of most nations on earth.

Dont hire Arthur Anderson, though, for the audit. Please. They are too busy right now anyway.

And besides, apparently you can hide some pretty big bucks pretty easily from these guys--just by lying to them. And that is something the Good Church of Rome has 2,000 years of experience doing.

Now I'm really fgeting nasty--see what the McKenna Foundation, the William Simon Foundation and--would you belive it-- Richard Mellon Scaiffe, contributing big bucks to St Vincent College, an alma mater of mine--so they can flimflam the poor students in Western PA with a political chair. Wow--these guys are everywhere.

First Chaminade High School and now St Vincent's--why one might think the Church of Rome has become a bit right-wing, since the Polish Pope came into power.

Maybe it was all that support he personally gave to Chile's dictator, Pinochet-and a host of other fascist dictators in Latin America?

Well at least he is trying to make Pope Pius XII a Saint.

Hey--wait a minute--isn't that guy Pacelli--Hitler's Pope? The guy who also had more than a little to do with the start of both World Wars (check out the book)--and the slaughter of nearly a half million Orthodox Serbs in WWII?

That is your religious instruction for the day.

Tomorrow, if you are nice to me--there is more--remember the name Opus Dei? You would if you saw 60 Minutes on Sunday. It was referenced in connection to the most damaging spy America has ever had. The guy is really a monster--he once confessed all to an Opus Dei priest--not that there is anything wrong with that--except that he was responsible for the deaths of more of our top moles in the Kremlin than any other person--by a lot too--and compromised our humint completely.

We were wiped out--totally.

Watch for the book--it's a doozy. Promise.

Now go forth and say 10,000 Hail Mary's and one million, Our Fathers. (Why cant the Church get modern and use those Prayer Wheels the Buddhists use--much more efficient.).

Do you go to hell if you are supposed to say 10,000 and only say 9,999? Or is that Purgatory?

Was this spy forgiven for all his sins?

Maybe I will go right before I die, just to be sure. But then, I can't think of any sins...can you?

Maybe a few impure thoughts about Traci or some of the gals in WC once in a while. Can't help it--they are so cute and they love me so much.

There is just no forgiveness in this Church, unless you go to Confession. Shucks.

Mel-o-rama

12-18-2001, 09:32 PM

I'm back. I had to take a few days off to move my house.

Now, being Mel-o-rama, I must join this discussion with my Mormon perspective. In the previous discussion, I went to no end to try to convince everyone that Mormons are Christians, and now Pseudolus is asking what early Christians thought of themselves. Did they think themselves as Jews?

The original Christians were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. He and his family were descended from Jacob. His family practiced the Law of Moses (sacrifices, etc.). Jesus followed the Jewish traditions in his three year ministry. For example, he had to wait till he was thirty to begin teaching as a rabbi. Most of his followers at the time were Jews.

Yet, Jesus taught new doctrine. He claimed to be the fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecies. He said he was the Son of God. He told his followers that he had come to fulfill the Law of Moses, and asked them to follow a new Law.

So, those first people who followed Jesus were indeed Jews by descent, but not entirely Jews in doctrine. In a sense, they probably saw themselves as Jews who had come to a greater understanding, thus becoming a Christian.

So, now there are two groups of people: The Jews who basically believe the writings in the Old Testament, and the Christians who accept both the Old and the New Testaments. Does this mean that Christians are better off because they have more scriptures? Not necessarily, because Jesus could have been a false prophet, and the Jews could be right in not letting themselves be deceived.

Today, Mormonism is indeed a young religion (as Pseudolus stated). It is strongly based on Christian principles, which is understandable since Joseph Smith attended many Christian churches (Methodists, Presbyterians, et al) as a young lad. Mormons practice baptism, the Lord's Supper, and believe in Jesus' Atonement for our sins. So on the surface Mormons can appear to be Christian. (Anyone who has the guts to attend a Mormon service will be able to confirm this.)

But Joseph Smith introduced new doctrines and ideas such as eternal families, baptisms for the dead, and Mormon temples, etc. Joseph Smith claimed to talk with the Lord like the prophets of old. He even claimed to have translated new scripture, the Book of Mormon (that's where we get our nickname). So, are Mormons Christian?

The Mormon/Christian relationship is so much like the Christian/Jew one, with one slight difference. In accepting Mormonism, you don't give up any of the Christian traditions. You just learn new ones. So there isn't the idea of out with the old and in with the new. Because of this slight difference, it's appropriate to call Mormons Christians while at the same time it may be inappropriate to call Christians Jews. And I think that's why Mormons today will call themselves Christians while Christians do not call themselves Jews.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-18-2001, 10:27 PM

If you want to look for a marker event, try the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This produced strong reactions in both the main-line Jewish community (now forced to deal with the long-term absence of Temple worship) and the Christian community.

The difference is apparent when comparing the synoptic Gospels to John's. The synoptics make considerable effort to distinguish which portion of the Jewish people was involved in which events. By the time John writes (certainly after 70, probably around 100 A.D. or so), he doesn't need to make those distinctions and refers indiscriminately to "the Jews".

Lucy

12-19-2001, 12:35 AM

Pseud, I believe the early Christians did consider themselves to be Jews. The dispute about proselytizing gentiles was not whether it was right to preach to non-Jews - Judaism was still a proselytizing religion at that time. The dispute was whether gentiles could become Christians without also becoming Jews (which meant keeping the old testament law, including laws of kashrut, and circumcision). For obvious reasons, it was easier to convert people to Christianity if you didn't require them to become Jews, first.

The "don't need to" faction won, in part because their number grew so much faster. Members of this branch of Christianity never considered themselves to be Jews.

Holton

12-19-2001, 08:48 AM

Thanks Mel for chiming in on the church.

Sounds to me like Andy needs a sedative. I think there was more to the Mormons backing off of the faith based idea than just opening up the books. As soon as the government gets their foot in the door, they begin to control more and more of the actions of the organization. And as you have so eloquently pointed out, the church is not hard up for government funds.

JMO

12-19-2001, 09:10 AM

Latter Day Saints take the constitution very seriously, including the first amendment. Their objection to the "faith-based initiative" was based upon this principle. Andy can make whatever assumptions he wants to about hidden motivations, but that doesn't make him correct.

By the way, if anybody takes up Pseud's suggestion and attends a Latter Day Saint meeting some Sunday may notice (as I did many years ago before we joined the church) that the services do NOT include any passing of "the basket" for contributions.

Thought

12-19-2001, 09:34 AM

Mel-o-rama:In accepting Mormonism, you don't give up any of the Christian traditions.

I was with you until you got to this point. What about these Christian traditions?

1. There is only one God. He is not the head of a family of gods. He doesn't have a father & mother, brothers & sisters, or a wife. He created everything that exists in this dimension or any other.
2. Jesus is God's only begotten son on earth, in heaven, or anywhere else. At the same time, Jesus IS God.
3. We are God's children not because his wife gave birth to us in heaven, but by adoption.
4. Satan is not God's son and Jesus' brother.

Now, you can argue (and have argued) that these traditions are not scriptural, and thus should not be a part of Christian tradition. But, you cannot say that these Christian traditions (right or wrong) are not "given up" by Mormons. As I said in the other thread, I see the Christian/Jew and Mormon/Christian relationships as virtually the same.

Andy Lang

12-19-2001, 12:25 PM

So why havent the good Mormons ever convicted a single polygamist, given that Mormons control everything in Utah and there are at least 50,000 polygamists there?

Last time I checked it was against the law.

And why are there so few people of color among you guys?

Why does the state of Utah have an absysmal record of public support for the poor--the worst in the nation, although Texas is close.

How did that scandal wih the Olympic Committee explode there, given all the Mormons who were involved and control the state?

Do Mormon controlled businesses pay income tax --federal or state--like us poor working slobs?

And why did your Governor and Senator Hatch both say that they knew plenty of polygamists that were good people--right after the Kingstan clan polygamist incest case exploded nationally and internationally by the way?

What do you think of the small but growing number of women who have escaped from polygamist groups and have formed activist groups opposing this stuff?

What would Christ say about the fundamentalism, the secrecy, the preoccuption with money, and with this abuse of women stuff?

Where on those Golden Plates of your founder are the polygamist thingees?

The Mister

12-19-2001, 12:30 PM

On 2001-12-19 12:25, Andy Lang wrote:
Why does the state of Utah have an absysmal record of public support for the poor--the worst in the nation, although Texas is close.Well, EXCUSE US for having such a large population of lowest-class immigrants. Yeesh. :roll:

Holton

12-19-2001, 01:44 PM

ANDY -

1) You are correct, polygamy is against the law. And each and every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would agree that polygamists of today are wrong. The criminal prosecution of polygamy goes beyond the control of the church.

2) I assume you are referring to african americans, because the latin american population is quite large in the church. As for african americans, I don't know, that would require me to know what they are thinking when exposed to the church. I would guess that the inability of african americans to hold the priesthood prior to about 25 years ago was a turn off. In my experience, I would say the african american population is slowly growing in the church.

3) I think the first issue (polygamy) is a major factor in this. These outlaw polygamists are creating a welfare problem that other states do not have to face. In my experience, the church does a fabulous job of helping those who want to help themselves. Dead beets need not apply.

4) First of all, Mormons are humans too and occassionally make mistakes. Second, I don't know what the makeup of the committee has been. I feel pretty confident in saying it is not all church members.

5) I can't speak to church owned businesses paying income taxes, but I feel very confident that they follow the laws of the land.

6) I'm sure we've all had friends, or at least associates who we thought were wonderful people only to find out that they have done something stupid or even criminal. Does that completely change the way we view them? Maybe. But I think you can still view that person as generally good.

7) This has nothing to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamists are not members of the church. PERIOD! Find another topic to discuss.

Oracle

12-19-2001, 02:01 PM

Holton -

When A**y L**g gets started on organized religion, there's no stopping him. Facts and logic have no effect whatsoever.

Those of us who have seen him before know it's best to disregard his posts. (Over in the SOA Desert, they know what to do with A**y. Hint- it works just like "Don't feed the troll.")

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-19-2001, 02:07 PM

Holton et al.:

It's obvious (or at least it was to the WC folks, and probably will soon be so here) that I'm no Mormon, but let me pass along a bit of general apologetic advice:

When someone is in no mood to listen, don't waste time talking to him.

Mel-o-rama

12-19-2001, 05:02 PM

Thought: I knew someone was going to bring your point up. This is where we’ll get into some interesting territory. You claim that Mormons gave up certain Christian traditions in lieu of some new doctrines. I’ll start out by saying that Mormons did keep a lot of the fundamental Christian traditions. But the early Christians also kept a lot of the Jewish traditions. I’ll agree that Mormons did away with some historic Christian traditions just as the early Christians did away with some Jewish traditions. But I will still say that Mormons are Christians, but Christians are not Jews. Here are some differences:

1) A belief in Judiasm is not necessary to become a Christian, but a belief in Christ is the first thing needed to become a Mormon.

2) Mormons believe that certain historic Christian traditions are wrong. As you said, Thought, Mormons will argue that such beliefs are unbiblical (or extra-biblical). From the Mormon point of view, since Jesus didn’t institute those traditions, Mormons aren’t really doing away with these traditions in question. To compare with the Jews: Jesus didn’t say that Jewish traditions were wrong, just that the Law of Moses was fulfilled and it was time for new traditions. Mormons, on the other hand do say that some historical Christian beliefs are wrong, and that they have knowledge of corrected doctrine.

3) The name “Christian” denotes a belief in “Christ”. “Mormon” does not denote a belief in a god called Mormon, but is rather a distinction that marks people who have accepted the Book of Mormon. “Jew” is determined by descent more than it is by belief. Anyone can become a Christian. It is difficult for most people to become a Jew. Any Christian can become Mormon.

4) Mormons aren’t the only ones who have abandoned certain Christian traditions. There are scores of Catholic traditions not practiced by other churches, including celibate monks, rosary beads, last rites, etc. So would it be correct to say that only Catholics are Christians and no one else is? On a related note: if you were to take any two Christian denominations, you would find that they disagree with each other in one way or another. Which of the two denominations is Christian?

Is the Mormon/Christian relationship starting to look different from the Christian/Jew one? I’m not sure you’d want the relationship to be identical, because you could then infer that Mormonism is the true religion that came out of Christianity (since Christianity was the true religion that came out of Judiasm). In fact I have read a non-Mormon historian’s theory that Mormonism has evolved out of Christianity just as Christianity evolved from Judiasm. He said that both religions were considered as “cults” when they first came out, but with increasing acceptance, each of these religions became “valid” religions. According to him, Mormonism is just now moving from “cult” to “valid” religion. Interesting thoughts.

Mr. Grim

12-19-2001, 05:34 PM

Is there really that mean Mormon actuaries out there, at least 3 posting on this web site? I am a little scared.

Andy Lang

12-19-2001, 06:31 PM

One does not move from a cult to a religion; if you call a squirrel a cow it doesn't make him one, although you might be able to milk it better.

Thought

12-19-2001, 09:04 PM

Mel-o-rama:Is the Mormon/Christian relationship starting to look different from the Christian/Jew one?

Not really. Let me review your points.

1. This analogy makes no sense. If you restate it in any consistent way, you get (1) A belief in Judiasm is not necessary to become a Christian, and a belief in Christianity is not necessary to become a Mormon, (2) A belief in OT scriptures is necessary to become a Jew, belief in OT&NT scriptures is necessary to become a Christian, belief OT&NT&BoM&PoGP&... is necessary to become a Mormon, or (3) A belief in God is necessary to become a Jew, a belief in God and Jesus of Nazareth is necessary to become a Christian, and a belief in God, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus of North America are necessary to become a Mormon.

2. Jesus did imply that many Jewish traditions (but not scripture) were wrong, especially with respect to what the Messiah would look like.

3. I don’t care about where the name ccome from. Again, to straighten out your analogy. Any Jew (or anyone else) can become a Christian. Any Christian (or anyone else) can become a Mormon.

4. As someone (Pseudolus?) said in the WC thread, you need to look at the between variance compared to the within variance.

I’m not sure you’d want the relationship to be identical, because you could then infer that Mormonism is the true religion that came out of Christianity (since Christianity was the true religion that came out of Judiasm).

That’s what the Mormons I know believe. Do you believe differently? Just because you (or they) believe it, doesn’t mean I have to. Do Jews believe that “Christianity was the true religion that came out of Judiasm?”

In fact I have read a non-Mormon historian’s theory that Mormonism has evolved out of Christianity just as Christianity evolved from Judiasm. He said that both religions were considered as “cults” when they first came out, but with increasing acceptance, each of these religions became “valid” religions. According to him, Mormonism is just now moving from “cult” to “valid” religion. Interesting thoughts.

Having nothing more to go on, I’d have to say that he seems to be supporting my point. When Christianity came to be seen as a “valid” religion, rather than as a Jewish cult, it no longer made sense to call its followers Jews.

[ This Message was edited by: Thought on 2001-12-19 21:06 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Thought on 2001-12-19 21:09 ]

Lucy

12-19-2001, 09:19 PM

Mel-o-rama,

While it is not necessary to become a Jew to become a Christian, it is, actually, necessary to "believe in Judaism" to become a Christian. In particular, it is necessary to believe in the God of the Jews, who is explicitly identified as the same Person as Christ. It's true that Christians and Jews have different perceptions of this God (for instance, Christians hold that He is male, whereas Jews hold that He fully encompasses both sexes, and is both more masculine than any man and also more feminine than any woman) but all Christians and most Jews would agree that we worship the same God.

Also, while it is difficult to become a Jew, anyone who sincerely wants to can do it. Although Judaism discourages converts, we have always recognized them.

And also, while I hesitate to speak for Christianity, I think that the great majority of Christians would agree that some doctrines are more central than others. I would guess that (1) and (2) on Thought's list would make most any Christian's top ten. In fact, if the Mormons don't believe these, I would venture to say that Mormonism is more different from Christianity than Christianity is from Judaism.

Is it true that Mormons don't believe Thought's (1) and (2)? I have in the past assumed that since Mormons claim to be a type of Christian, they are. If they disagree with the rest of Christianity on such fundamental points, I will have to reconsider that point of view. (Not that my opinion matters, I suppose.)

Polygamist

12-20-2001, 09:47 AM

Come on Andy, what's so wrong about polygamy? As long as both man and wives are consenting adults, I don't see anything wrong with you. Are you jealous because you're not allowed to practice polygamy?

And Grim, there are Mormons everywhere. The majority of Mormons live outside of the Utah. That's why Andy hates us so much.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 10:05 AM

Christians hold that He is male

I'm not sure about that, though (saying this for the first of several times) I maintain that male pronouns are the way God has chosen for us to address Him. Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

So both male and female are in some sense an image of God.

However, God in the Bible is always referred to using male pronouns and terms (e.g., King, not Queen). Therefore, that is the language we should use. The precise ramifications of that language are unclear, but the verse I quoted above would seem to limit the application. I also note that there are instances of feminine imagery, such as Luke 13:34.

In other words, while I am adamant that God should be referred to with male pronouns, I am not sure that equates to the flat statement that God (except in the person of Jesus) is male. But I am certainly open to correction on the latter point.

sb_jim

12-20-2001, 11:55 AM

OBK: Are you quoting from the original first edition or something written in English? Maybe the guy that did your translation preferred that god be a guy.

I think a lot has been lost in the translations but you may be a Greek/Hebrew scholar for all I know. Literal interpretations of a bad translation are dangerous.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 12:00 PM

The quote I gave was from the KJV, not because I prefer it (I'm more into the RSV), but because that's what I can reference here. That said, I'd be surprised to find a translation of that verse from Genesis which is substantially different.

I am fairly confident that the description of pronouns and titles I gave is correct in the original languages, though I know only an extremely meager smattering of Greek and no Hebrew whatsoever.

G. Ringo

12-20-2001, 12:12 PM

Actually, "his" in the first clause has an ambiguous antecedent. The second clause in Hebrew can mean, "In the image of God He created him," or, "In an image God created him," although the second translation seems to make the clause superfluous and does not follow the cantillations.

Pseudolus

12-20-2001, 12:16 PM

Would the relationships between Jesus/Mary/Joseph/God-the-Father* cast light on the issue, or could that be seen as a relic of translation as well?

*(I don't mean to assume the answer here, just can't think of a different word to distinguish from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.)

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 12:20 PM

What's a cantillation in this context? I looked it up and found a reference to chanting, which I understand but didn't seem to apply.

Pseud, I don't understand your question. Too much junk food today or something, I guess. Can you clarify?

sb_jim

12-20-2001, 12:23 PM

GG is definitely an ancient language scholar, and I obviously don't have any conclusion to draw based on what he said.

Here is my theory, shoot it down or ignore it.

Shakespeare wrote the King James version of the Bible. The evidence is mostly seen in Psalms and Song of Solomon, but even the Genesis stories are in his style.

Evidence against my theory: Many of the works attributed to Shakespeare weren't written by Shakespeare.

How does the KJV compare to the Pope's own Latin version? It can't be more accurate can it? And I doubt if it's an exact match.

[ This Message was edited by: sb_jim on 2001-12-20 12:23 ]

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 12:29 PM

Better evidence: The 46th word in Psalm 46 is "shake". The 46th word from the end of Psalm 46 (excluding the concluding "Selah") is "spear". Shakespeare was 46 when the Authorized Version was released. Any questions? :smile:

I don't have an OT Vulgate, and I doubt I can find one here at work. I'll have to check later.

[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-20 12:30 ]

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 12:39 PM

I spoke too fast. Genesis 1:27 in the Vulgate, with my best attempt at a literal translation:

et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam
And God created man according to his own own image

ad imaginem Dei creavit illum
According to the image of God he created him

masculum et feminam creavit eos
male and female he created them

It's got the same ambiguous antecedent problem as the English does.

Pseudolus

12-20-2001, 12:45 PM

Obi - I meant that Mary is always spoken of as Christ's mother, while Joseph is not considered His father. Christ's Father is God-the-Father, confirming that, to the extent He can be spoken of as having a gender, that gender is male.

(edited because I got lost in both the antecedents AND capital letters)

[ This Message was edited by: Pseudolus on 2001-12-20 12:45 ]

G. Ringo

12-20-2001, 12:48 PM

Biblical Hebrew has a system of intonation marks that bracket the text. Since they lend themsleves to cantorial renditions, they are often called cantillations. The clause in question is "betselem Elohim bara oto." Betselem can mean "in an image" or "in the image of." Elohim is a name of God. Bara means "(he)created." Oto means "him." The cantillations bracket [betselem Elohim] [bara oto], suggesting the translation "in the image of." For the translation "in an image," we should expect *betselem [Elohim [bara oto]]. Note that specific cantillations do not denote specific syntactic relationships. Cantillations only bracket.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 01:16 PM

Pseud: I'll buy that.

Gregor: Thanks. I've learned something today!

G. Ringo

12-20-2001, 01:43 PM

Actually, I believe that the Latin does disambiguate the antecedent. The reflexive "suam" refers to the subject.

Thought

12-20-2001, 01:43 PM

Obi-Wan Kenobi:The quote I gave was from the KJV, not because I prefer it (I'm more into the RSV), but because that's what I can reference here...I don't have an OT Vulgate, and I doubt I can find one here at work.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/ has both RSV and Vulgate, and many more, with passage lookup and word search.

A Catholic who reads the RSV. What’s the world coming to?

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 01:47 PM

Gregor: You're right (again). I'm still a little at sea from the shifting "created him" to "created them" part.

Thought: Websense doesn't like Gospelcomm.

The RSV is (or at least was) an officially approved translation. Ignatius Press has a nice version with the disputed OT books inserted in order and the preferred Catholic reading of ambiguous passages used as the main text.

[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-20 13:48 ]

Thought

12-20-2001, 02:02 PM

Obi-Wan Kenobi:The RSV is (or at least was) an officially approved translation.

Wow. Considering its basis of translation, I would never have guessed that. For example, its liberal* translators denied the virgin birth. One went so far as to say that the virgin birth was simply made up to protect Mary from being stoned.

*Liberal, in this context, means that they deny the verbal inspiration of scripture.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 02:10 PM

Which translator(s)? (Not that I doubt you--I'm just curious.)

I guess they left their deconstructing out of the translation, at least. I was just reading the RSV Matthew Luke during the last few days, and the Virgin Birth is still in there.

Mel-o-rama

12-20-2001, 03:03 PM

Lucy:

I'm glad you asked your question. Here's a recap on Thought's traditions, which you asked if Mormons believed or not:

1. There is only one God. He is not the head of a family of gods. He doesn't have a father & mother, brothers & sisters, or a wife. He created everything that exists in this dimension or any other.
2. Jesus is God's only begotten son on earth, in heaven, or anywhere else. At the same time, Jesus IS God.

In a sense, Mormons do believe in 1) and 2). One thing to realize is that the ideas that Thought listed were written with Mormons in mind. This is a very subtle, but important point.

I'll start with 1). Before the Mormons came around, there was no question about God having a mother, father, sisters, etc. No one even thought about it. So, it wouldn't make much sense to include the matter in a list of Christian traditions that Mormons abandoned. So to be fair I'd have to start by rephrasing Thought's #1(pre-Mormon) as follows:

There is only one God. He created everything that exists.

Now, along come the Mormons and they say, yes there is only one God to us, but now we know there are other gods that have nothing to do with us. We know they're there, but the knowledge has no bearing on our salvation (kind of an FYI thing). God did create everything we see that exists, but now we know there are other worlds (possibly other dimensions/universes) that exist that we can't see that were created by other gods. This is my attempt to show how Mormonism has taken a Christian tradition and has expounded on it rather than done away with it.

After the Mormons presented this new doctrine, the mainstream Christian churches now disagree and they add quantifiers to their own doctrine. They add the fact that God has no god-family, and that there are no other dimensions that God didn't create (bringing Thought to his #1[post-Mormon] as he originally stated). Of course the Bible is explicitly silent on these nitpicky issues.

I must also add that Mormons are used to other people changing or re-emphasizing certain parts of their doctrine and policies in our behalf. For example, antipolygamy legislation was passed only after Mormons started practicing it.

Now I pick on Thought's 2). Actually taken word for word, Mormons would not disagree with it at all. Jesus is indeed God's only begotten Son (in the Flesh) in earth, heaven, or anywhere else. However, Mormons add to that the doctrine that we are all God's spiritual children. God created us all. And Jesus IS God, but again the Mormons have to clarify this as follows.

Jesus is the God (a.k.a. LORD) in the Old Testament who created everything we see, and spoke with Moses, etc. But he did so under the instruction of his Father who is also God. The Bible is clear that the Father and the Son are two separate personages, and I can give several examples upon request.

Further clarification: In our unholy mortal state, we are unworthy to be in the presence of the Father, so he sent his Son to be a Mediator. Whenever "God" speaks to man, it is usually Jesus. Whenever the Father speaks, it is always to announce his Son. When Jesus was baptized, the Father said, "Behold my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Jesus was the one who died for our sins so that we can overcome and become worthy to be in the presence of the Father. Jesus will be the one to come again in the Second Coming. Personally, I'd have to think this makes more sense to me than a "mysterious" Trinity that is three-in-one and is beyond anyone's understanding. (Have you ever seen a person who thinks he's so smart that if he doesn't know something, it's a mystery to everyone?)

On a similar note, Mormons would agree with Psuedolus's 12:45 post 100%.

Finally, for the "within/variance" argument, I just have to point out that I see at least three groups while Thought and others see two. These are Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons (instead of Christians and Mormons). I see that the variance within any of these groups is relatively small, but is definitely noticeably larger between any two of these groups. If you want to include Catholics and Protestants in the same group, you should also include the Mormons. All three groups believe in Christ, but each have different ideas about the nature of Christ and our relationship to him.

Well, I'm starting to outwind Andy Lang. I hope I don't bore anybody.

JMO

12-20-2001, 03:14 PM

Thanks, Mel-o-rama. You did a better job of addressing the issues than I would have.

Edited to put in my signature line:
Carol (JMO) Marler

[ This Message was edited by: JMO on 2001-12-20 15:15 ]

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-20-2001, 03:20 PM

After the Mormons presented this new doctrine, the mainstream Christian churches now disagree and they add quantifiers to their own doctrine. They add the fact that God has no god-family, and that there are no other dimensions that God didn't create (bringing Thought to his #1[post-Mormon] as he originally stated). Of course the Bible is explicitly silent on these nitpicky issues.

Your statement that the Bible is explicitly silent is incorrect on your second point, as Pseudolus and I pointed out when we had this discussion on the Water Cooler (particularly in reference to John 1:2 "And without him was nothing made that was made.") (I do not concede that Scripture does not refute the first point, either, but I am working in some haste at the moment.)

Christian churches did not "add" to their doctrine by rejecting the items you mentioned. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that anyone before Joseph Smith had ever thought such things might be the case. When proposed by the Mormons, the churches looked at their beliefs, said, "No, that's not in there and can't be added without destroying what is there."

(Edit for minor typo)

[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-20 15:35 ]

12-20-2001, 03:26 PM

(for instance, Christians hold that He is male, whereas Jews hold that He fully encompasses both sexes, and is both more masculine than any man and also more feminine than any woman)

I was raised in a mainstream Christian denomination and was taught (and I believe) the second version of God described above.

[Edited to add this:]
As for God-the-Father & Mary, try this. Assume the above "Jewish" description of God's gender is correct. Given that a man cannot bear a child, God would require a human woman to fulfill that half of the relationship. Therefore, even if God were both male and female, we could not have God-the-Mother & Joseph making Jesus. Thus, the fact that Mary was female does not negate the initial assumption and show that God is exclusively male.

[ This Message was edited by: Me on 2001-12-20 15:32 ]

Lucy

12-20-2001, 09:43 PM

Sorry about misstating anyone's beliefs. I got the idea of God as male from C.S. Lewis, who was pretty explicit on the point, and assumed it was Christian doctrine. Of course, Jesus was male.

As for the biblical pronouns - Hebrew is a highly gendered language. You can't talk about a person (or even an object) without assiging a gender to it. I'm told that Hebrew grammar requires that you resolve all cases of ambiguous gender with the masculine. For example, if you are talking about a group of 19 women and one man, you should use the masculine pronoun. This seems to me like a complete explanation for the consistent use of the masculine to describe God in the bible.

Jack

12-21-2001, 10:52 AM

There was an article in newsweek a few months back on Mormonism. The article claimed Mormons believe God has a wife. The article also stated that men can achieve Godhood.

Was the article slanderous or are Mormons polytheists?

Can polytheists who believe in the divinity of Christ, legitimately call themselves Christians?

What is the relationship of salamanders (if any) to Mormonism?

What is the name of the book Andy keeps recommending on the subject?

Thanks for the help

JMO

12-21-2001, 11:08 AM

Uh, salamanders? What are you talking about?

Jack

12-21-2001, 12:16 PM

I found some info by doing a search
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingcontents.htm

G. Ringo

12-21-2001, 02:50 PM

Resolution of ambiguous genders in Hebrew is actually more complicated than what Lucy says. Defaulting to masculine applies only when a group is designated by a noun phrase that does not have a grammatical gender, such as a conjoined noun phrase or a demonstrative. When a mixed group is designated by a noun that has a grammatical gender, that gender governs, even though natural gender would tend to have priority for a single-sex group. In this week's Torah reading, note the numbers used with "nefesh," which is grammatically feminine.

Polygamist

12-22-2001, 02:24 AM

I can tell you what I know about salamanders and the guy named Mr. Tanner who loves to talk about it.

Mr. Tanner is a person who lives in Utah, who I believe used to be a Mormon. He became disenchanted with the church and decided to reveal its "secrets". He also lives with the paranoia that the Mormons are out to get him. He is the Andy Lang to all Mormons. He can take any little thing and turn it into some kind of Mormon conspiracy theory.

One of these is about something called the "Salamander Letter". You may remember in the 1980's when a person in Salt Lake City named Mark Hofmann was killed in a car bombing accident. Enemies of the church were quick to deduce the following story:

Mark Hoffman was a collector of historical documents. He discovered the "Salamander Letter" in which Joseph Smith admitted that the church wasn't true. The present day Mormon church didn't like this, so they tried to get rid of the letter and Mark Hofmann, too.

Well, it didn't take long for an independent non-church supported forensic force to determine the truth of the matter. Mark Hofmann forged the Salamander Letter as well as a score of other historical documents, and he also accidentally bomb himself. The day Hofmann died, he was trying to set up a bomb in a car to kill someone else, but he dropped the bomb in the passenger seat and it blew up as he tried to catch it. So much for the church cover up. (I'm leaving out the details of other people Hofmann succesfully blew up in car bombings in the weeks before his accident.)

So, here we have a guy, Hofmann, who is trying to make Mormons look bad, who doesn't stop at even murder. The proper authorities establish the man's guilt, and still people like Hofmann (and Andy) make a conspiracy theory out of it. Crystal clear facts never appeal to these sorts of people.

Unfortunately, others who don't have time to (or don't care to) validate all the evidence usually choose to believe these mad men. Or they come to the conclusion that if these people have so much bad things to say about the Mormons, there must be some truth to what they're saying.

I'm telling you as a former Utah resident, there is nothing strange going on with these Mormons. We're not planning on taking over the world. We're not plotting in secret brotherhood meetings in our temples. We're not spending our tithes except for building churches, temples, charity, or anything else that isn't public knowledge. We're just ordinary people living out ordinary lives just like any other religion.

All you Andys and Tanners can believe what you want, but please do us all a favor and put a little common sense into your thought processes.

Mel-o-rama

12-22-2001, 03:18 PM

It took me awhile to think about this, so here goes nothing. This is for you Obi-Wan and Pseudolus and others. I'll start with my understanding of the Mormon interpretation of John 1:1&3.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (John 1:1)Here, the Word is Jesus Christ (the Son), and "God" refers to the Father. In other words, in the beginning there was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father.
and the Word was God. (John 1:1)In this clause, "God" refers to Jesus (the Son) in his role as God (see my previous post). It also refers to the god-like attributes Jesus shares with the Father. Most Christian denominations see the word "God" as being the same in both instances, thus coming to the conclusion that Jesus and the Father are the same being.

Some important things to point out: In this verse, John is speaking metaphorically. We know that "Word" refers to Jesus because He was the one who gave us the word of the Gospel. But how can the Word be with God, and yet be God? Can someone be "with" themself? There are several different valid interpretations of this verse, so we can't really rely on this verse by itself.

My first question for Obi-wan: Would you mind explaining the Catholic view of the Trinity?

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.(John 1:3)In this scripture, what do "all things" and "not any thing" refer to? Obi-wan and Pseudolus think as most Christians do, that these terms are Absolute. I say that "all things" refers to all things that we can see and know about (our universe), while "not any thing" refers to everything else (other universes/dimensions to which we have no access). So in my point of view "all things" and "not any thing" are absolute to us, but not entirely absolute outside of our universe. It's as if God were to appear to Moses and say, "Look at everything around you. I created it all." Moses can only see what's in his universe, so to him God did indeed create everything.

Obi-wan wrote:When proposed by the Mormons, the churches looked at their beliefs, said, "No, that's not in there and can't be added without destroying what is there."My second question for Obi-wan: Could you explain to me how the additional Mormon doctrine destroys what's in the Bible? For example, could you explain how the existence of other gods destroys the belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation?

Finally, I want to show several examples in the Bible that show that the Father and the Son (and also the Holy Spirit) are different personages.

(Just before Stephen the Apostle was martyred) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.(Acts 7:55-56)Self-explanatory, Stephen saw Jesus standing next to the Father.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)Did Jesus increase in favor with himself?

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mark 1:9-11)When Jesus was baptized, God was in heaven speaking, Jesus was down in the water, and the Spirit was descending like a dove. All three members of the Godhead were present and accounted for in three different places.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?(Matthew 27:46) Didn't Jesus know that he was God?

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son (John 5:22)If the Father and the Son are the same person, how could He both judge man, and yet not judge man?

(After Adam & Eve partook of the fruit) And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22)Who is "us"?

I guess that covers examples from all four Gospels plus a couple of extras, and there are much more where these came from. With all of these scriptures in mind, it's much easier for me to believe that the Father and the Son are two entirely different personages. Perhaps Obi-wan's explanation of the Trinity can clarify the meaning of these scriptures.

[ This Message was edited by: Mel-o-rama on 2001-12-22 15:24 ]

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-22-2001, 08:46 PM

I'll get back to you, but I'm going to take a rain-check over Christmas.

Anonymous

12-26-2001, 08:57 AM

From a theological and historical perspective, it is quite easy to classify mormonism. Historically, cults have been defined as groups that deny central articles of the Christian faith, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Groups fitting this definition include Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons.

Of course, the word "cult" has acquired a very negative connotation in the last 50 years, due primarily to the notorious actions of groups like the Branch Dividians.

In his classic theological work, "Kingdom of the Cults", Walter Martin defines a cult as follows:

"A group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible...From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain not a few major deviations from historic Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as Christians."

Thus, it isn't surprising that Mormons adamantly insist that they be called "Christian". This is, in fact, part and parcel of the historical definition of a cult.

[ This Message was edited by: Sgt. Frank Sloan, USMC on 2001-12-26 08:58 ]

Holton

12-26-2001, 10:23 AM

So what "group(s)" would not be classified as a cult under this definition. From what I've seen, and depending on your point of view, someone can find some deviation from historical Christianity with most so-called Christian "groups".

Mel-o-rama

12-26-2001, 01:43 PM

Obi-Wan: I can wait. I too won't have much time to post during Christmas break.

To the Sgt., I want to expound on Holton's thought. Wouldn't historical Christianity Catholicism (making everyone else a cult)? Why aren't Lutherists called a cult? Didn't they follow the interpretations of one man's view of the Bible? What about Calvinists, and others? What about those who believe in the so-called Rapture theory (the Left Behind series), which was put together by one man in the 1800s?

I guess you can call whoever you want a cult, but if you do it can't possibly hold much meaning.

Anonymous

12-26-2001, 02:45 PM

My friends,

Certainly there are differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and even differences between the various branches of Protestants. As Melorama points out, there are differences in things like the Doctrine of Eschatology (pre, post, or a-millinealism). However, these faiths are all united under the umbrella of Christianity because of a shared core belief that can be summarized by the Nicene Creed. As my mormon friends will be quick to point out, the Creed itself is not in the Bible, but all of the ideas expressed in the creed are re-affirmed numerous times in the Bible.

A religion that denies the Triune God (mormons) or the Incarnation (Jehovah's Witnesses) is not a Christian religion. No matter how hard these groups try to spin their distorted view of the Gospel message. The fact that they vigorously affirm to be "Christian" only further affirms their membership in the category of cults.

As for Luther, Calvin, J. Armineas, etc. These folks wrote commentaries on the Bible. They supported these commentaries by pointing to the Bible. There was no mysterious, and phony, revalation of an angel. No one, not even an angel, can add or subtract anything from the Gospel. So sayeth the Bible.

F. Sloan

[ This Message was edited by: Sgt. Frank Sloan, USMC on 2001-12-26 14:47 ]

burton leon reynolds

12-26-2001, 03:03 PM

It is interest that you use the word meaningless. Throughout history many words have lost their meaning. Two come to mind. Gentleman and Christian.

The word gentleman once referred to a man of noble or gentle birth. Calling someone a gentlemen was nothing more than stating a fact. Nowadays it is subjective.

The word Christian, not unlike the word gentlemen, has lost its original meaning as well. This word was first used to describe people that were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now it is used to desribe a good person.

This is not my point it is C.S. Lewis' point. Lewis further says that we do not argue about our differences, rather the importance of our differences.

The only thing that matters is how you receive salvation. The Bible spells it out loud and clear. There is nothing written in the Bible that is absolutely vital to your salvation that is left up to interpretation.

My advice to any one who will listen is that the Bible is the only book you need. Interpret the Bible literally on earth and ask God for clarification when you are in Heaven.

burton leon reynolds

12-26-2001, 03:22 PM

On 2001-12-26 15:03, fitnadoodis wrote:
It is interest that you use the word meaningless.

I am sorry. I stand corrected. I used the word meaningless.

Oracle

12-26-2001, 03:34 PM

Are there any Christian churches that do not accept the Nicence creed? What about the eastern orthodox, such as Greek and Russian? Does anybody know?

I suspect that there are quite a few people who call themselves Christian (of whatever denomination) who would have a hard time using the Nicene Creed as the measure of their Christianity.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? (Just wondering. . . in the context of defining who is a Christian.)

Anonymous

12-26-2001, 03:50 PM

There was an Orthodox poster on the WC who can give you the true run-down, but here's my understanding.

All major Christian Churches, excluding Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses (I am not saying they are or are not Christian, I am just clarifying) accept the Nicene Creed. There is one part of the Nicene Creed...very minor...that Orthodox people have issues with. The Catholics (and I believe the Protestants) would say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the father AND the Son". The Orthodox believe, IIRC, that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the father" (and NOT the son, by implication).

Other than that, the Nicene Creed is pretty well the foundational creed for all Christianity--and it demonstrates how close most Christian Churches are on theological issues.

Anonymous

12-26-2001, 04:19 PM

I have a rather simply way to exclude the Catholic religion from being Cristian.

Given that being a Christian implies that you are filled with the Holy Spirit, and that you are filled with the Holy Spirit after you except Christ as your personal savior.

Catholics believe that Mary was without sin. This comes from their belief that Jesus could not be born from someone with sin. This contradicts the road to Salvation. Because to be saved you must first believe that all haved sinned all fallen short of the Glory of God. Therefore, the Catholic religion can not be a Christian religion.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-26-2001, 04:40 PM

you are filled with the Holy Spirit after you except Christ as your personal savior

Your source for that assumption, please?

This comes from their belief that Jesus could not be born from someone with sin.

Incorrect. The Immaculate Conception took place as an honor, not as a logical necessity. Otherwise it would require an infinite regress of sinless people, which makes no sense to me either.

Because to be saved you must first believe that all haved sinned

No, you must first believe that you have sinned.

(Edit to remove excessive testiness, for which I apologize.)

[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-26 17:13 ]

Oracle

12-26-2001, 04:44 PM

Thanks, Shekky Tree.

I'm not sure I see the point of the distinction, but your answer was quite responsive.

Now I have another question, for anybody who might want to respond. Do those Christian churches which believe that nothing can or should be added to the Bible also accept the Nicene Creed?

Lucy

12-26-2001, 07:33 PM

Obi, if you have time, I am interested in your response to Mel-O-Rama's last post.

Andy Lang

12-26-2001, 09:15 PM

So Sarge, according to you, mind control by folks like the Branch Davidians would not be cults if only the Bossman of that group had professed to your few conditions.

How about Opus Dei--which has the full support of the Pope--indeed it selected him in the first place to be Pope.

Many Catholic priests and other clergy think it is a cult--as does the family of some who are being woofed by this group and some escapees too.

A cult has something to do with coercing of the members and cutting them off from the world and family--to say nothing of their money.

Opus Dei members are sometimes referred to as Catholic Mormons, BTW--the major difference is that the founder is up for being a Saint by the Pope (along with Pope Pius XII, who some have labled Hitler's Pope) and the organization has his full and total support. I might too if they made me Pope.

Hey--maybe I am already and don't know it yet!

The Drunken Actuary

12-26-2001, 09:19 PM

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-27-2001, 08:45 AM

"Do you know that the virgin birth was stolen from other religions that were popular in the first century a.d."

No, I don't. Nor, in fact, do you. You only allege what cannot, at this distance, be proven.

I believe God's plan for salvation was made known fully to the Jews only, but He gave hints to all peoples to prepare the way. Thus, I can state, with fully as much evidence, that the relationship goes the other way.

"And that only one of the gospels mentions it."

I don't know this either, particularly because it isn't true. Matthew 1:18-23 affirms it, as does Luke 1:34-36.

"And that one of the gospels traces Jesus lineage back to king david through Joseph hi father. Seems to contradict the virgin birth doesn't it?"

Given that the lineage in question is presented in Matt 1:1-17, immediately before Matthew affirms the virgin birth, I would have to say no.

Holton

12-27-2001, 09:27 AM

Somehow I have to agree with Andy. It seems as if we've come to the point of saying the Nicene Creed defines Christians and if you don't meet this definition, you're a cult. I think that is totally wrong. Cults involve much more than just a belief or lack thereof. For example, atheists. Would that be a large cult? I don't think so. There has to be some action involved, as Andy mentions, like separation from the world and family.

Andy - how do you categorize opus dei as catholic mormons?

Jack

12-27-2001, 10:18 AM

Love God,
Love neighbor as self.
(paraphrased)

Most important part of the whole Bible (my opinion)

The Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) is wonderful from a poetic, philisophical, and theological standpoint.

One needs not be Christian to benefit both Biblical section.

I personally have serious doubts about religion in general but I still benefit by knowing these two items.

The Drunken Actuary

12-27-2001, 12:30 PM

Obi-Wan,
interesting, I'll have to recheck the facts and get back to you. However, I must say that if you do not believe there were other religions that included a virgin birth because of the distance of time, why do you believe your religion? Or perhaps you don;t believe the part about it being stolen? Anyway, I'll recheck my facts on the lineage thing and get back to you.

Mel-o-rama

12-27-2001, 05:04 PM

Sgt. (and others): You can't just say that a Christian is someone who believes in the Nicene Creed. Such a definition is biased by those who wish to call Mormons non-Christian. It's almost as if you've already decided that Catholics and most Prostestants are Christian but Mormons are not and you're just looking for any excuses. It's true that Catholics and most Protestants believe the Nicene Creed while Mormons disagree with it. So some of you have come to the biased conclusion that you must believe in the Nicene Creed to be a Christian.

Are Mormons Christians? To find out we should really go to a neutral source. I've found this summary of definitions of the word "Christian" on this interdenominational website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Note the dictionary definitions on the word Christian:

Encarta: "Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically...the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ...is...a feature of all the historical varieties of Christian belief and practice. Christians have not agreed in their understanding and definition of what makes Christ distinctive or unique." 5
Webster's: "1. A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus. 2. A decent, respectable person. 3. having the qualities demonstrated and taught by Jesus Christ, as love, kindness, humility, etc. 4. Of or representing Christians or Christianity. 5. humane, decent, etc." 6
Other dictionaries: According to, Robin's Nest, 7 most English dictionaries define a Christian as: "n. person who believes in and follows Christ. adj. relating to Christ or Christianity; kind or good."

Considering these unbiased definitions on what a Christian is, Mormons are indisputably Christians. Jesus Christ is the center of our doctrine (Encarta), we profess belief in Jesus Christ (Websters), and we follow Christ (Nest).

You can believe the Nicene Creed all you want, but it evidently has nothing to do in determining whether a person is Christian or not.

On a related note, are there any Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists out there brave enough to join the discussion. I'd like to know if you consider yourselves to be Christian.

General Kenobi (ret.)

12-27-2001, 05:06 PM

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm about to be away from my computer for a few weeks, so I'll have to say my bit here and then disappear for awhile.

DA: I don't believe it was stolen. I believe it happened.

Having gotten home and rechecked, both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus's ancestry back to David through Joseph. (Both are, BTW, incomplete.) Luke's genealogy does say "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph". I don't know the Greek to figure out if the last line of Mark's ("Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born") is an explicit repudiation of Joseph's physical fatherhood. Since Matthew proceeds immediately to tell the story of the Virgin Birth, I'm not sure it matters.

Switching gears:
Mel-O-Rama asked for an explanation of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. That would require several graduate level courses in theology (which I haven't had), but I can provide an outline and pointers to a little more of an in-depth explanation.

The Baltimore Catechism was the standard for teaching Catholic schoolchildren for decades; when I was in Catholic school (as a Protestant) in the late Seventies, we were one of the last places using it. It does a good job of presenting an introductory-level view of the topic, and here's what it says:

Lesson 3: ON THE UNITY AND TRINITY OF GOD
"Unity" means to be one, and "Trinity," three in one.

21. Q. Is there but one God?
A. Yes; there is but one God.

22. Q. Why can there be but one God?
A. There can be but one God because God, being supreme and infinite, cannot have an equal.

"Supreme" that is, the highest. "Equal" when two are equal one has everything the other has. You could say one pen is the equal of another if it is just as nice and will write just as well; one mechanic is the equal of another if he can do the work equally well. Two boys are equal in class if they have exactly the same marks at the end of the month or year. You could not have two persons chief. For example, you could not have two chief generals in an army; two presidents in the nation, or two governors in a state, or two mayors in a city, or two principals in a school, unless they divide equally their power, and then they will be equals and neither of them chief. God cannot divide His power with anyone-so as to give it away entirely-because we say He is infinite, and that means to have all. Others have only the loan of their power from God. Therefore, all power and authority come from God; so that when we disobey our parents or superiors who are placed over us, we disobey God Himself.

23. Q. How many persons are there in God?
A. In God there are three divine persons really distinct and equal in all things-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

"Distinct," not mingled together. We call the first and second persons Father and Son, because the second is begotten by the first person, and not to indicate that there is any difference in their age. We always see in the world that a father is older than his son, so we get the idea perhaps that it is the same in the Holy Trinity. But it is not so. God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost existed from all eternity, and one did not exist before the other. God the Son is just as old as God the Father, and this is another great mystery. Even in nature we see that two things may begin to exist at the same time, and yet one be the cause of the other. You know that fire is the cause of heat; and yet the heat and the fire begin at the same time. Though we cannot understand this mystery of the Father and Son, we must believe it on the authority of God, who teaches it. First, second, and third person in the Blessed Trinity does not mean, therefore, that one person was before the other, or brought into existence by the other.

24. Q. Is the Father God?
A. The Father is God and the first Person of the Blessed Trinity.

25. Q. Is the Son God?
A. The Son is God and the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

26. Q. Is the Holy Ghost God?
A. The Holy Ghost is God and the third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

2. Q. What do you mean by the Blessed Trinity?
A. By the Blessed Trinity I mean one God in three Divine Persons.

28. Q. Are the three Divine Persons equal in all things?
A. The three Divine Persons are equal in all things.

29. Q. Are the three Divine Persons one and the same God?
A. The three Divine Persons are one and the same God, having one and the same divine nature and substance.

Though they are one and the same, we sometimes attribute different works to them. For example, works of creation we attribute to God the Father; works of mercy to God the Son; and works of love and sanctification to the Holy Ghost; and you will often find them thus spoken of in pious books; but all such works are done by all the Persons of the Trinity; because such works are the works of God, and there is but one God.

30. Q. Can we fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God?
A. We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God, because this is a mystery.

"Fully"--entirely. We can partly understand it. We know what one God is and we know what three persons are; but how these two things go together is the part we do not understand-the mystery.

* 31. Q. What is a mystery?
A. A mystery is a truth which we cannot fully understand.
"A truth," that is, a revealed truth-one made known to us by God or His Church. It is a truth which we must believe though we cannot understand it. Let us take an example. When a boy goes to school he is taught that the earth is round like an orange and revolving in two ways, one causing day and night and the other producing the seasons: spring, summer, autumn, winter. The boy goes out into the country where he sees miles of level land and mountains thousands of feet in height. Again he goes out on the ocean where sailors tell him it is several miles in depth.

Now he may say: how can the earth be round if deep valleys, high mountains, and level plains prove to my senses the very opposite, and the countless things at rest upon its surface tell me it is motionless. Yet he believes even against the testimony of his senses that the earth is round and moving, because his teacher could have no motive in deceiving him; knows better than he, having learned more, and besides has been taught by others who after long years of careful study and research have discovered these things and know them to be true. If therefore we have to believe things that we do not understand on the authority of men, why should we not believe other truths on the authority of God? Yes, we must believe Him. If a boy knew all his teacher knew there would be no need of his going to school; he would be the equal in knowledge of his teacher, and if we knew all that God knows we would be as great as He. As well might we try to empty the whole ocean into the tiny holes that children dig in the sand by its shore, as fully to comprehend the wisdom of God. This is the mistake unbelievers make when they wish to understand with their limited intelligence the boundless knowledge and mysterious ways of God, and when they cannot understand refuse to believe. Are they not extremely foolish? Would you not ridicule the boy who refuses to believe that the earth is round and moving because he cannot understand it? As he grows older and learns more he will comprehend it better; so we, when we leave this world and come into the presence of God, shall see clearly many things that are unintelligible now. For the present, we have only to believe them on the authority of God teaching us. Another example. We take two little black seeds that look just alike and place them in the same kind of soil; we put the same kind of water upon them; they have the same sunlight and air, and yet when they grow up one has a red flower and one a blue. Where did the red and where did the blue come from? From the black seed, or the brown soil, or the pure water, air and sunlight? We do not know. It is there, and that is all. We see it and believe it, though we do not understand it.

So if we refuse to believe everything we do not understand, we shall soon believe very little and make ourselves ridiculous.

(Parenthetical note: I love that last sentence. It sums up a lot of modernist theology quite well.)

If you want an more technical explanation, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church version here (http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=1&SecNum=2&ChapNum=1&articlenum=1&ParSecNum=2&subSecNum=3&headernum=0&ParNum=249&ParType=6) and <a href=http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=1&SecNum=2&ChapNum=1&articlenum=1&ParSecNum=2&subSecNum=3&headernum=0&ParNum=249&ParType=6">here</a>. I recommend starting with the "In Brief" notes at the end of the second reference, and looking at the fuller descriptions when questions arise.

Once that's done, I think the idea that most of your biblical citations create difficulties for the doctrine of the Trinity falls away. Two of them perhaps deserve greater comment:

Luke 2:52 says that Jesus grew "in favor with God and man," and you asked if that meant that Jesus grew in favor with himself. To some degree, I'd say yes. The important thing to remember is that Jesus was (and is) simultaneously fully God and fully man. His human nature was just like ours, except without the stain of Original Sin (which I realize Mormons don't teach). As a human, He had to grow up like anyone else. As He did so, He became more suited to the task for which He became man, and can therefore be said to have grown in favor with God.

The other was Matt 27:46 (with a parallel passages in Mark): "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

There are several ways to look at this passage, but the one which has struck me of late as more and more helpful is this: Jesus is quoting the first line of Psalm 22. In what has just happened, He has seen fulfilled around Him other verses from the same psalm: "They have pierced my hands and feet" (v. 16b); "They divide my garments among them, and for my rainment they cast lots" (v. 18); "All they who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; 'He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!'" (v. 7-8). By His quotation, Jesus recognizes His role in the psalm. But note how the psalm ends: "Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it."

[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-27 17:06 ]

Mel-o-rama

12-27-2001, 05:21 PM

Thanks Obi-wan. See you when you get back. I'll think about what you posted.

Anonymous

12-27-2001, 05:26 PM

Do you know that the virgin birth was stolen from other religions that were popular in the first century a.d. And that only one of the gospels mentions it. And that one of the gospels traces Jesus lineage back to king david through Joseph hi father. Seems to contradict the virgin birth doesn't it? But then again, no one ever said the bible was internally consistent.

a) what religions? And how do you know it wasn't the other way around?

b) IIRC, the Koran also mentions the virgin birth of Jesus. I'll check tonight....(I am 100% certain that jesus appears in the Koran).

Polygamist

12-27-2001, 05:32 PM

Sargeant USMC wrote:
No one, not even an angel, can add or subtract anything from the Gospel. So sayeth the Bible.
Maybe you can explain to me the meaning of this scripture in Revelations 14:6
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.Maybe you believe that the time for angels is past, but that's not what my Bible sayeth.

Andy Lang

12-27-2001, 08:38 PM

Already they are at it.

Go get em, Sarge.

Go get em, Polygamist.

Ahhh, competition, it is great. Let em duke it out and make sure no one religion wins.

But beware the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Their agenda was identical to Reagan's and pretty much the same as Bush's.

Did you know that the Christian Coalition was controlled by the Catholic folks and that Jerry Falwell was the chosen one back in Nixon;s day to fool the dumb protestant Bible-belters?

Did you know that a significant portion of the bad boys in the CIA are Roman Catholics--adn the very first one in the forterunner of the CIA, the OSS, was 'Wild Bill' Donovan who recieved the Popes highest medal for his work?

Did you know that Reagan's cabinet had 11 of it's 12 members as church-going Roman Catholics--most of them Irish, like Reagan--and the most terrible deeeds were done by Bill Casey, CIA head, who met with Pope John Paul II and gave him some of our secret calssified photos?

Nothing wrong with bringing down communism, but hey guys, did you have to also aid in bringing to power all those fascists in Latin America?

And which Church was it that caused the U.N's population control programto not get US funding and cause it to collapse?--overpopulation being one of the most serious problems in the world today as the UN has continued to say for a quarter century--?

Wherever the RCC has dominated the political affairs of states the people have suffered enormously---down through the centuries and all over Latin America.

It is far and away the most important reason why Latin America is so undeveloped and has such huge poverty and income and wealth gaps.

And now, appearing in your local schools and Congress and here in the good ole US of A, is---Right-Wing Roman Catholicism, run by the Pope and his Merry Band of Cardinals. With help from Bush of course--and his right-wing Merry Band of Thieves.

Both steal from the poor and give to the rich.

Hey, it's nice to go back to the 15th century. Trust me--they know what is best for you to read, see, and think. You will be happy as clams--just dont try to see anything and just suck up all that stuff they feed you.

Lee Mellon

12-27-2001, 08:46 PM

Shekky - Try Joseph Campbell for virgin birth myths (literally truth, from the Greek mythos, out of the mouth) that precede JbarJoseph.

Elisha

12-28-2001, 12:48 AM

Guys, I just spent over 45 min typing and researching a response and then I forgot to type in my password and lost everything. Since I don't have time to reproduce it, check out these links.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/index.html
http://www.lxx.org/index2.html (then about us -> articles on the bottom)

I don't know if I'll respond to much unless I can think of something short and sweet.

Moderator2

12-28-2001, 08:00 AM

Elisha, you shouldn't have lost everything. When you got the error message, did you try your browser's back arrow? I use Internet Explorer and that's what I do. Then you just type in your password and resubmit.

Hagbard Celine

12-28-2001, 08:05 AM

I think it depends on your settings.

I use internet explorer also and I always lose stuff when I make a mistake like that. I hit the back arrow and the boxes are blank. Kinda sux.

Elisha

12-28-2001, 11:11 AM

Mod2, Hagbard,
I use Netscape (I have IE too). Yes, when I hit the back button, everything was gone. Maybe I'll reply more this evening, but I hope everyone interested just explores the links I provided in the meantime. I don't want to use this forum much while at work.

Amateur Linguist

12-28-2001, 05:04 PM

If you'll forgive a tangent, I'd like to share an anecdote about God & grammatical gender from Greville Corbett's book Gender:

. . . consider the translation problem faced by a missionary working on the Peve language in south-west Chad. . . . He discovered that Ifray 'God' took the pronoun Ta 'she'. Converts claimed not to think of God as having a sex and suggested the use of Mum 'he' for the Christian God, because of phrases like God the Father. But to outsiders, this sounded strange grammatically and was inconsistent with their idea of creation (it is women who give birth/create). And so Ta 'she' was reinstated.

sciolist

12-28-2001, 07:08 PM

To add my two cents to the issue of “using the Nicene Creed as a measuring stick of whether Mormons are Christian” -- look at WHY the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not subscribe to the Creed.

Arguments to date have focused on: you don’t accept it, you don’t believe it.

My studying indicates this is the weaker of two arguments as to why the Creed isn’t part of Mormon theology. Mormon doctrine seems much more likely to say the Creed is excluded primarily because of the way it came about, and secondarily because the doctrine it contains.

Two analogies to clarify:

1) If someone can make a perfect counterfeit of an American dollar bill, does the US Gov’t back it up? No, because the authority isn’t behind it.

2) If my math is grossly wrong, but I come close to the correct answer, will I get full credit? Probably not, because the process was in err.

The Mormon Church does not consider itself a “follower” of the Nicene Creed (or any succeeding Creeds) because the authority/process they believe God works by was not present in them.

Herodotus

12-28-2001, 09:33 PM

Why does it matter to Mormons whether "other" Christians consider the Mormons to be Christians or not?

It is clear from the discussion above that Mormons are more different from mainstream Christianity than pretty much anything else that goes by the name "Christian". I would think a Mormon who was familiar with the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and half-a-dozen generic Protestant denominations would agree with this. There are a few Protestant outliers, such as the Unitarians, who may not be "Christian" (it depends on the church) but their claim the the title "Christian" is also disputed, and the ones who are farthest from the mainstream usually recognize it and don't protest. (It is the Unitarians who are closest to mainstream Christianity who care, and their beliefs are pretty conventional "Christian".)

True, the Mormons believe in "Christ" (although a rather different Christ than conventional Christians), but whether or not they are called "Christian" is kind of semantic. What outsiders call you doesn't affect what you believe, or whether or not you will be saved.

So why do Mormons care? It's not just Mormons writing to this forum who care. Orson Scott Card (my favorite Mormon author) has a lot of scenes with characters who are miffed that outsiders don't think they are Christian. This seems to be a recurring Mormon issue.

I gather the Mormons believe that they have the true, complete version of Christianity, but the early Christians felt the same way about Judaism, yet they called themselves "Christians" and didn't insist that others called them "Jews". Is it fear of stigma? Jews (and many Unitarians) seem to manage fine in a Christian nation without being recognized as "Christian". Is it because "Christian" is sometimes used interchangably with "good",and Mormons want others to think they are good? Is it just a desire to fit in?

Mel-O-Rama? Polygamist? How come?

Holton

12-28-2001, 11:08 PM

Mel-o-rama

12-29-2001, 01:51 AM

Herodotus:

I agree with Holton. There is really only one reason why I want to be called Christian and that's because I believe in Jesus Christ. When you say I'm not a Christian, to me you are saying I don't believe in Jesus. It's as simple as that.

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 07:52 PM

Shekky,
ZoroAsrtrianism had tremendous influence on chsistianity and judaism. Read this: http://www.pyracantha.com/zjc3.html I believe they also had a virgin birth myth as well. Am still looking.

Obi-Wan
That is the problem. Mathew contradicts himself. Right after he tells us Jesus's lineage from Jehoiachun, (which BTW he has trouble counting here, telling us there are 14, but then only naming 13) down to JOSEPH, he goes on to tell us that Joesph is not the father, but the holy spirit is. Doesn't that bother you a little bit?

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 08:01 PM

TDA:
Of all the examples used to show the Bible contradicts itself, these are the ones you find most compelling to site?

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 08:07 PM

Short answer :YES
Long answer: YES, since the vrigin birth seems to be so central to christianity, I think it is pretty compelling not only when different gospels contradict each other, but when mathew contradicts himself on that issue in the span of a few pages.

Perhaps you'd like to share your most compelling contradiction?

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 08:11 PM

I don't have a "most compelling condtadiction" to site. But I do find the first one you have sited to be rather trivial, and the second one to be a non-contradiction.

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 08:25 PM

Perhaps you could clarify a bit. What are you referring to as the first and the second?

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 08:31 PM

The first one you gave was saying there are 14 generations, but only naming 13. The second one you gave involved the paternity of Jesus.

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 08:40 PM

OK, I agree the first one is trivial. That is why it was in () and prefaced with BTW.

The second one however, I simply disagree with your opinion that it is trivial.

If the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, mistakes like either of the above should not appear.

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 09:01 PM

My opinion is not that the second one was trivial, nor did I state it as such. I said that the second one is a non-contradiction.

axjoke

12-29-2001, 09:02 PM

I've often wondered about the lineage too. Especially since being from the lineage of David was one of the prophecies which jesus supposedly filled. I think it was traced back through Joseph, not mary, yet Joseph wasn't his real father.

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 09:46 PM

Thanks, axjoke, that was the point that i was apparntly unable to make.

Apologies Griffin, you are of course correct. So perhaps you could explain how showing Jesus is descendent from David through his father joseph AND then showing that Joseph is not jesus's father, is not a contradiction of Jesus's descendency from David??

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 09:57 PM

When you go back to the Greek text, does it actually say "father" both times in the same way?

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 10:18 PM

You miss the point. What Mathew does is draw the lineage from David to Joseph to Jesus. The Messiah of course was expected to be descendent of David so this is not unespected. So the implication is clear that Joseph is the father of Jesus. However, he then goes on in Mathew 1:18 to say "before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

I don't know about you but the contradiction is clear to me. Either Joseph is his father and he is descendent from David OR The Holy Ghost is his father and he is not descendent from david. Not both.

BTW the OT did NOT predict that the messiah would be of virgin birth, though people will dispute that claim by pointing to Isaiah 7:14 'behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son' The Hebrew word used by Isaiah here meant 'young woman' not virgin. Unfortunately, Mathews use of it in Mathew 1:23 led many early translations Iincluding King James)to use the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

Griffin 1

12-29-2001, 11:29 PM

On 2001-12-29 22:18, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
You miss the point.

Since you are relying on English tranlations, I would say that it is you who has missed the point.

The Drunken Actuary

12-29-2001, 11:45 PM

I do not rely on one translation alone. Since I do not speak or read ancient hebrew or greek it is all that I can do. Perhaps you can enlighten me with you personal translation of the original versions of the texts.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 08:23 AM

Even in the English translations, it says "conceived of the Holy Spirit", or "pregnant through the Holy Spirit". It doesn't say that Joseph and the Holy Spirit are both the father in the same sense of the word.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 10:30 AM

Griffen

Regardless if it says both were the father or not. You have to choose between Joseph being the dad and Jesus fullfilling the prophecy of coming from the house of David, or the virgen birth story, in which case Jesus would have no blood line back to David. Its your pick.. either way you will either contradict the prophecy about the Messiah having bloodlines to david, or the common christian belief in the virgen birth.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 10:47 AM

Anyone willing to accept the rest of the Bible should have no problem accepting a child conceived of the Holy Spirit, yet also having Joseph's bloodline. Or do you think that a person who believes God can create the universe in 6 days would have problems with God knowing how to place the right DNA in a baby?

axjoke

12-30-2001, 11:24 AM

On 2001-12-30 10:47, Griffin wrote:
Anyone willing to accept the rest of the Bible should have no problem accepting a child conceived of the Holy Spirit, yet also having Joseph's bloodline. Or do you think that a person who believes God can create the universe in 6 days would have problems with God knowing how to place the right DNA in a baby?

So what is the point of giving Joseph's bloodline as proof of Jesus's link to David? Why didn't the inspired authors just say Jesus had the right DNA? Or is your explanation that god did some sort of artificial insemination which both made it a virgen birth and Joseph the father?.. And wouldn't that still make Joseph the father, not the Holy Ghost? Its pretty clear that in giving Joseph's bloodline the authors were implying that Jesus was fullfilling the prophecy...

axjoke

12-30-2001, 11:30 AM

Griffen..

I think its clear you dont' view that as a contradiction. What about the two accounts of Creation in Genesis? Do you not find it odd that in one account man came before beast, and in another account man came after beast? Can both be correct? Do you somehow not view this as a contradiction either?

"(Animals then man)

(Gen 1:24 NRSV) And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.

(Gen 1:27 NRSV) So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Man then animals

(Gen 2:7 NRSV) then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

(Gen 2:19 NRSV) So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. "

Quoted from http://www.jestercourt.com/~capella/aguide/

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 11:38 AM

On 2001-12-30 11:24, axjoke wrote:
So what is the point of giving Joseph's bloodline as proof of Jesus's link to David? Why didn't the inspired authors just say Jesus had the right DNA? Or is your explanation that god did some sort of artificial insemination which both made it a virgen birth and Joseph the father?.. And wouldn't that still make Joseph the father, not the Holy Ghost? Its pretty clear that in giving Joseph's bloodline the authors were implying that Jesus was fullfilling the prophecy...

My explaination is that it is not hard to accept a child conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet still continuing the bloodline, and that I don't see this as a true contradiction.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 11:45 AM

On 2001-12-30 11:30, axjoke wrote:
I think its clear you dont' view that as a contradiction. What about the two accounts of Creation in Genesis? Do you not find it odd that in one account man came before beast, and in another account man came after beast? Can both be correct? Do you somehow not view this as a contradiction either?

I have no idea. Contradictions in the Bible are not important to me. TDA was trying to make a point about contradictions in the Bible. He gave two examples, one of which was trivial at best, the other was a non-contradiction.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 11:53 AM

Griffen,

Are you christian? And if so how are biblical contradictions not important?

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 11:55 AM

You may call my contradiction trivial if you like. I disagree. In fact, any conttradiction in a book that is followed literally as the word of god by millions of people is important to me. Including the non-cotradiction of Mathew not being able to count correctly. I did not originally portray this as a contradiction by the way, if you review the posts, you will see that YOU are the one who first called it a contradiction. I simply stated it as an aside to the ONE contradiction I was pointing out. You went on to sat that neither of my contradictions were compelling. WHen I asked you which two you meant, you mentioned the 13-14 thing.

[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-30 12:01 ]

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 12:11 PM

On 2001-12-30 11:53, axjoke wrote:
Are you christian?

What difference does it make?

And if so how are biblical contradictions not important?

There are many Christians (I do not know the demographics, but I suspect they are in the majority) who do not rely on inerrancy of the Scriptures as a basis of their faith.

Mel-o-rama

12-30-2001, 12:14 PM

Alright you guys, I have a simple solution to your lineage contradiction. It's true that Joseph came from David and the Bible says Joseph is not the literal father, so how could Jesus be descended from David?

Simple answer, Mary was descended from David. Here's some Biblical evidence:
And Joseph also went up ... unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) Luke 2:4Everyone had to go to appointed cities based on their lineage. Since Mary was not yet married to Joseph, she would have to go to her appointed city to be taxed. Since she went to Bethlehem, she must have been of the house of David. Contradiction solved.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 12:18 PM

Griffen,

I'm sure there are a lot of christians that doubt the accuracy of the bible. But i think they are the minority. Do you peronsally think it to be free of flaw?

I tip my hat to those thinking christians that are both able to see the contradictions of the bible and are willing to admit them. I agree one doesn't need to think its accurate to believe in Jesus.. although i'm not sure why one's mind would be able to except errors being present but yet believe the virgen birth, giving sight to the blind, resurections.. ect to be true.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 12:22 PM

On 2001-12-30 11:55, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
You may call my contradiction trivial if you like. I disagree.

Let's agree on whether the 14/13 thing was intended as a contradiction. If it was intended that way, then it is trivial. If not, let's drop it. I don't care which you way you choose, just choose one, and stick with it.

In fact, any conttradiction in a book that is followed literally as the word of god by millions of people is important to me.

The people that take the book literally and believe in its inerrancy seem to have no problem with it. They also tend to be much better at explain apparent contradictions than I am.

Why do you have such a problem with what you believe to be contradictions in a book you choose not to follow or believe?

Including the non-cotradiction of Mathew not being able to count correctly.

No, I said this was a trivial contradiction (if it was indeed intended by you as a contradition). The Joseph vs. the Holy SPirit as father thing was what I said was a non-contradiction.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 12:29 PM

Mel,

Thanks for the explanation. It certainly seems like a plausible solution to me.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 12:36 PM

On 2001-12-30 12:18, axjoke wrote:
I'm sure there are a lot of christians that doubt the accuracy of the bible. But i think they are the minority.

For what it's worth:
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html

Do you peronsally think it to be free of flaw?

I already said it is not a big deal to me. So why would I go to the trouble of forming an opinion on the matter?

I tip my hat to those thinking christians that are both able to see the contradictions of the bible and are willing to admit them.

Why the pejorative terminology? I know many thinking Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as well as many non-thinkers who are sure about the existance of contradictions.

I agree one doesn't need to think its accurate to believe in Jesus.. although i'm not sure why one's mind would be able to except errors being present but yet believe the virgen birth, giving sight to the blind, resurections.. ect to be true.

Ever hear of faith? Can you think of anything else that people believe despite the existance of clear contradictions or lack of clear evidence? I can.

BTW, why do you always misspell my name?

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 12:40 PM

On 2001-12-30 12:14, Mel-o-rama wrote:
Simple answer, Mary was descended from David.

There you go, TDA.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 01:45 PM

Griffin,

Sorry about the name thing... was purely accidental. Like any uninspired author I too make numerous mistakes.

Thanks for the link. Although my statement referred to individuals not organizations,I was certainly mislead in my thinking that the an overwhelming number of churches claimed inerrency for the bible. Do you have similar links for stats on what christian individuals think? Maybe polls taken?

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 01:52 PM

I just went to Yahoo and searched on "christian inerrancy bible". That was one of the first ones to come up.

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 02:39 PM

Griff, I think this whole thing about the contradiction(s) I mentioned and weather I meant them as contradictions etc has become to confusing for me to follow. I will sum up by saying (1) the Joseph/Holy Spirit thing IS in my opinion a contradiction within the gospel of Mathew. (2) the 13-14 thing is just wrong, and probably a name was lost somewhere in the eons. I only point it out as proof that the Bible has obvious errors. Why do I care about a book I don't follow? I am interested in the subject because there are many people that do believe in the literal translation of the bible and those same people are an important political force in the country (USA) and affect things like school curriculum. I do not want my kids learning about creationism in a science class. So, I point out these contradictions or whatever you want to call them as a reason to think that perhaps the bible should not (in fact can not) be taken literally.

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 02:49 PM

Oh yeah, about Mary being descended from David. That may be, but that does not change the fact that Mathew specifically draws the lineage from Joseph, not Mary.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 02:53 PM

And my point is that the one contradiction you choose to illustrate is not really a contradiction. Even if you could persuade me that it is, so what? Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet with Joseph as a father is something every Christian is aware of, especially those to whom inerrancy is important. Clearly, these individuals have already sorted out this issue in their own minds. If you are going to point out contradictions, find a real one.

As to the political implications of pointing these things out, I can think of one famous example where evolution was taken out of the curriculum (then it was quickly put back in). I don't know of any schools that recently have actually replaced evolution with creationism. How big a threat do you really perceive this to be?

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 03:19 PM

I did not say they were replacing evolution with creationism. I said they want to teach creationism in science class. Even if the teach Evolution too, I think creationism has no place in science class. There was a recent article (maybe a year ago?) about a school district in KS that opted to do this.

And I seriously doubt that most people that profess to be christian have read the bible enough to know these contradictions exist, let alone sort it out in their own mind.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 07:30 PM

On 2001-12-30 15:19, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
I did not say they were replacing evolution with creationism. I said they want to teach creationism in science class. Even if the teach Evolution too, I think creationism has no place in science class. There was a recent article (maybe a year ago?) about a school district in KS that opted to do this.

That's fine. Kansas was the one example I could think of. The decision was quickly repealled. Where else has this happened? How big of a threat do you really perceive this to be?

And I seriously doubt that most people that profess to be christian have read the bible enough to know these contradictions exist, let alone sort it out in their own mind.

Since I failed to make it clear before, being Christian does not imply a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. Most Christians belong to denominations that do not require this. But, of the Christians to whom inerrancy is important, most of those who do care about apparent contradictions have sorted it out. In fact, these people could probably show you where most of the alleged contradictions are at (before explaining why each is not really a contradiction).

axjoke

12-30-2001, 07:46 PM

[/quote]
Since I failed to make it clear before, being Christian does not imply a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. Most Christians belong to denominations that do not require this. But, of the Christians to whom inerrancy is important, most of those who do care about apparent contradictions have sorted it out. In fact, these people could probably show you where most of the alleged contradictions are at (before explaining why each is not really a contradiction).
[/quote]

I would disagree about both things. Whether or not their choice of organized religion demands belief in inerrancy of the bible a lot of individuals still accept it. Being raised mormon, one listed as not requiring the bible to be without error, numerous mormon peers thought it to be, i was taught it to be as a child... ect.. Also i don't think most christians have explained away contradictions in their own mind as they are frequently easily confused when they are brought up.

Disclaimer.. all clearly my opinion based on personal experience.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 08:25 PM

The people who are easily confused when you tell them about an apparent contradiction are not the same people who may be trying to get Creationism into the schools' curriculum.

I will agree with you that most Christians don't have the contradictions worked out in their own minds, but for those Christians that inerrancy is a make-or-break issue, the contradictions are worked out. How many of the people who you were able to confuse actually changed their religious practices?

As for knowing some Mormons who believed the Bible to be error-free, I was raised in a religion where the inerrancy of the Bible was assumed as fact by the denomination. This was a conservative church in a cinservative denomination. While many of the members believed the Bible to be error-free, many did not, including the minister.

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 09:11 PM

As far the how big a threat do I think creationists are: as long as the republicans pander to the most fringe elements of the far right, I'll take the threat seriously.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 09:14 PM

Come on, let's be serious, not delusional. Sober up.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 09:16 PM

griffin

I can only think of 1 that might have actually switched their belief but his ties to christianity weren't so strong to start with. I have had a few more people change their minds about various topics, while maintaining the majority of their christian beliefs.

It obvious we have different views. Personally i don't feel most christians are even familiar with the Old Testament or a lot its teachings. I'll agree these probably arent' the ones fighting to have creation taught in school, but i do believe them to be ones that would support it being taught in school. Just as I frequently hear them talk of the bibles laws against homosexuality. When i hear this my first reaction is to bring up the bible's support of slavery. They don't seem to know its in there. My view is that ignorance is easily misled so the more they are questioned and forced to investigate the better.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 09:48 PM

On 2001-12-30 21:16, axjoke wrote:
It obvious we have different views.

Or maybe not.

Personally i don't feel most christians are even familiar with the Old Testament or a lot its teachings.

I don't think most people are familiar with the teachings of their religion, regardles of what that religion might be.

I'll agree these probably arent' the ones fighting to have creation taught in school, but i do believe them to be ones that would support it being taught in school.

But how serious do you find that threat to be?

Just as I frequently hear them talk of the bibles laws against homosexuality. When i hear this my first reaction is to bring up the bible's support of slavery.

And most of the literalists I know would not have a problem with the support for slavery. (I assume you are talking about Paul's letter to Philemon.)

They don't seem to know its in there.

But I bet they easily dismiss it.

My view is that ignorance is easily misled so the more they are questioned and forced to investigate the better.

If you feel the need to mess with other peoples' religion, fine. If you are going to do this through showing contradictions, pick an actual contradiction. Is there any contradiction not easily explained or dismissed? The actual order of Creation and the number of generations between Jeconiah and Joseph are not things that would shake most peoples' faith. The paternity of Jesus issue is not a contradiction, but any Christian not aware of the facts in this issue has been paying no attention at all.

axjoke

12-30-2001, 10:01 PM

My view is that ignorance is easily misled so the more they are questioned and forced to investigate the better.

If you feel the need to mess with other peoples' religion, fine. If you are going to do this through showing contradictions, pick an actual contradiction. Is there any contradiction not easily explained or dismissed? The actual order of Creation and the number of generations between Jeconiah and Joseph are not things that would shake most peoples' faith. The paternity of Jesus issue is not a contradiction, but any Christian not aware of the facts in this issue has been paying no attention at all.
[/quote]

I would agree they frequently dismiss the whole support of slavery, however it does get some to think. I was referring to Leviticus, but exodus has a few verses too.

As for contradictions.. i'm not sure why you view two different accounts of creation in the first few chapters of the bible to be of no or little importance. I think it sets a clear tone for the bible.. for one to view it as uninspired. Shouldn't an inspired book at least be true? I'm curious what you deem to be a contradiction worthy of pointing out?

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 10:24 PM

On 2001-12-30 22:01, axjoke wrote:
I was referring to Leviticus, but exodus has a few verses too.

Most Old Testament laws are of little or no consequence to almost all Christians.

As for contradictions.. i'm not sure why you view two different accounts of creation in the first few chapters of the bible to be of no or little importance.

Because it sounds like a technicality at best. How does that go to the core of anyone's belief?

I'm curious what you deem to be a contradiction worthy of pointing out?

Like I said before, I'm not aware of many of the alleged contradictions because it has never been important to me. So I can't provide examples I would say are worthy. Give me a link to a site that lists most of the alleged contradictions, and if I have time, I'll look through it for one I think is worthy (but keep in mind, between television, video games, and posting here, I don't have much time to spare).

The Drunken Actuary

12-30-2001, 10:45 PM

On 2001-12-30 21:14, Griffin wrote:
Come on, let's be serious, not delusional. Sober up.

Actually, I meant to say religious right. Anyway, I think it's serious but if you don't, that's fine.

Here is one such site.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html

Some of them are admittadly trivial. I happen to think that any contradiction in a supposedly divinely inspired book (that is what I was taught the bible is) are noteworthy. You are welcome to disagree and it is abundantly clear that you do. However, if you do have time to peruse this list in-between your other activities, let me know what you think.

[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-30 22:47 ]

axjoke

12-30-2001, 10:47 PM

The below link has various contradictions listed. I'll agree a lot of them are purely technical.. while you discredit the usefullness of such contradictions I think its useful in ones judgement of the accuracy of the bible in whole. As for your view that two accounts of creation is a technical contradiction i would disagree. Both can't be right.. so why should one believe either?
http://www.jestercourt.com/~capella/aguide/

Once again.. i would disagree that the O.T. is of little consequence to christians. Surely one should read it and at least decide if its even moral, let alone the inspired word of god. If christians want to toss the savagery of the O.T. out, then do the same with the accounts of genesis.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 11:16 PM

On 2001-12-30 22:45, The Drunken Actuary Actually, I meant to say religious right. Anyway, I think it's serious but if you don't, that's fine.

And my reply remains the same.

Griffin 1

12-30-2001, 11:16 PM

On 2001-12-30 22:47, axjoke wrote:
Once again.. i would disagree that the O.T. is of little consequence to christians.

Actually, I said that the Old Testament laws are of little consequence to most Christians.

The Drunken Actuary

12-31-2001, 12:47 AM

Like the ten commandments?

Griffin 1

12-31-2001, 06:48 AM

Go back and re-read the discussion.

axjoke

12-31-2001, 08:51 AM

DA..

No, the ten commandments still apply.. just not the laws commanding the stonings of infidels, women who have premarital sex, gays.. ect. I don't think the the hebrews are to enslave people from other nations either. I'm not sure but i doubt if a women's hand is to be cut off if she grabs a man's genitals in a fight either. For the most part christians have a conscience and can at least choose which ones are semi-moral and should still apply.

G. Ringo

12-31-2001, 12:49 PM

The Bible gives one chronological account of the six days of creation, in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is a focused story of the creation of human beings. It mentions other parts of creation only as they become relevant to the creation of human beings. Hebrew does not have a range of tenses adequate to distinguish between "created" and "had created." One must translate, "God had previously made a garden grow in Eden, and He put Adam in it. God had created animals, and He brought them to Adam."

There is no stoning penalty for premarital sex. The stoning penalty is for infidelity after erusin. Erusin, translated in English Bibles as "betrothal," is not just engagement. It is the first stage of marriage, dissolvable only by divorce or death. In ancient times a match was secured by erusin as soon as possible, although preparing the wedding feast, the bride's trousseau, and the marital home could take as long as a year after erusin.

Some Hebrew judicial terminology is idiomatic. Yad, literally "hand," has many metaphorical meanings. Cutting off a yad is a kind of fine, not literal dismemberment.

Hebrew alma means a young woman. It is used in Proverbs in contexts in which the woman is clearly not a virgin. The problem is that the Septuagint translates alma in Isaiah by parthenos, which normally does mean a virgin. Since Christians used the Septuagint in early debates with Jews, that translation is apparently not a late emendation. My conjecture, which I have not seen proposed by anyone else, is the following. The Song of Songs speaks of queens, royal concubines, and alamot. Apparently women who worked in the king's harem but were not royal consorts were called alamot. An alma was called parthenos in Greek because she was not a royal consort, but she was not necessarily enjoined from having a husband and children at home after work. Isaiah was giving a time frame in terms of events that were the talk of Jerusalem upper-class society. Senacherib would be defeated before the harem matron's baby, who was being raised on delicacies with the princes, colud say "Mommy" and "Daddy."

axjoke

12-31-2001, 01:27 PM

Grub..

Thanks for the explanation of genesis. It was a fresh perspective for me. Although I don't think it was translated as such in the KJV or NIV that i generally use.

My apologies for the misrepresentation of premarital sex being worthy of stoning. I'm not so sure that stoning those who break wedding vows is any more appealing though... nor is the treatment of gays and infidels that you seemed to agree with me on. Also i didn't see any attempt to explain away the laws telling the Hebrews to enslave others.

As for the hand thing.. once again. Your explanation seems plausible and much more tolerable, but i haven't saw it translated as such either.

loose nugget

12-31-2001, 02:17 PM

I see this thread has drifted a bit. I need to read a little more and see what was said but it sounds like a lot of the same stuff as what is in another thread.

The slavery you see Paul talking about is not the kind of slavery we had here in America with blacks. Someone sold themselves into slavery if there debts became to big. It was possible to get out of slavery.

axjoke

12-31-2001, 02:58 PM

Nugget..

I was referring to laws of slavery in Leviticus and Exodus. Ones where it says you can beat them with a rod so long as they don't die and get up after a few days... ones that say that slaves are property, they are to be willed down to your generations.. they are to be slaves for life. This largely sounds like the slavery i'm so accustomed to thinking about.

BTW.. didn't want you to think i was avoiding your question in the other thread. I'll answer them soon.

[ This Message was edited by: axjoke on 2002-01-01 11:21 ]

Herodotus

12-31-2001, 03:18 PM

As a Mormon myself, I know I am a Christian. I am only concerned with our "classification" because many people have have no idea how wrong they are about our beliefs. And often people incorrectly think as you seem to think, that we either don't believe in Jesus or one that is dramatically different, which is not true at all.

I had no idea how different the Mormon idea of Jesus was from the "mainstream" Christian view until I read Mel-o-rama's stuff above. Mel, you have convinced me that you are not what I think of when I think "Christian" - previously, I accepted Orsen Scott Card's claim that Mormons were Christian.

I'm sure you believe in a god named Jesus, I just don't think it's the same god. A critical part of the description of the God of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed is that He is unique. etc.

Happy New Year

Holton

01-02-2002, 08:50 AM

Herodotus,
I believe this is my quote, but anyway, what about this statement or any of Mel's comments makes you think we're so different?

Thought

01-02-2002, 01:21 PM

You guys have been busy. I’ll try to catch up. Some of this goes way back, so bear with me.

Obi-Wan Kenobi:I guess they left their deconstructing out of the translation, at least. I was just reading the RSV Matthew Luke during the last few days, and the Virgin Birth is still in there.

The problems seem to occur primarily in the Old Testament. Here is some interesting info from Bible-researcher.com:The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament. The verse most often mentioned was Isaiah 7:14, in which the RSV translators rendered the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" intead of "virgin," but this was by no means the only problematic verse. There were many other instances of the same problem, which revealed a pattern of systematic contradiction. (To give only one further example: in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders "by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves" contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16.) The objections of conservatives were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there, as liberals have evasively characterized the matter; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament in so many places has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches. At any rate, the rejection of the RSV by evangelicals had serious consequences for the future of the version. At the time that it was replaced by the New Revised Standard Version in 1990, the RSV was one of the least popular versions in America, having only about 5 percent of the market share in Bibles.

However, they also shed light on why the RCC approved its use: Although the RSV translators in their revisions of 1952, 1959 and 1971 turned a deaf ear to the criticisms offered by conservative Protestants, they did cooperate with Roman Catholics in the production of [a 1966 RC] edition, in which many unsound alterations were made in the New Testament in accordance with the peculiar doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., "full of grace" substituted for "favored one" in Luke 1:28).

Mel-o-rama:One thing to realize is that the ideas that Thought listed were written with Mormons in mind. This is a very subtle, but important point.

After reading your response, I think that most people can see why.

Before the Mormons came around, there was no question about God having a mother, father, sisters, etc. No one even thought about it... Mormonism has taken a Christian tradition and has expounded on it rather than done away with it.

As others have responded, this is just plain wrong. You have taken a concept of God as Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, creator of the universe, and replaced it with an exhalted man from another planet/dimension, a created being, and a god among many.

the mainstream Christian churches now disagree and they add [qualifiers] to their own doctrine. They add the fact that God has no god-family

I added these qualifiers because of the context. I know of no church that includes such things in any statement of doctrine. The statement that “there is only one God” stands alone. That is, until someone comes along and says “I agree with that, there is only one God that we care about.” You have then agreed to a statement that directly contradicts the original. I also hesitate to call the existence of one God versus the existence of many gods a nitpicky issue.

Now I pick on Thought's 2). Actually taken word for word, Mormons would not disagree with it at all.

Again, you say you don’t disagree with it, but you change it by adding “in the Flesh”. You say that we are all created by God and that we are His spiritual children, but you don’t mean these things in the way Christians mean them. What you mean is that God and his wife gave birth to us (as well as Jesus and Satan) as spirits, before we were born on earth. Again, the words sound the same, but the meaning is vastly different.

But how can the Word be with God, and yet be God? Can someone be "with" themself?...My first question for Obi-wan: Would you mind explaining the Catholic view of the Trinity?

I’ll provide a protestant response, which I don’t believe is any different than the Catholic view: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html

Finally, I want to show several examples in the Bible that show that the Father and the Son (and also the Holy Spirit) are different personages.

This does not violate the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, that’s one of its basic tenets.

Walter Martin, as quoted by Sgt. Sloan: "A group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible...From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain not a few major deviations from historic Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as Christians."

That seems to be one of many reasonable definitions to me, but like you say, the word “cult” has taken on a rather derogatory connotation.

Mel-o-rama:Wouldn't historical Christianity [be] Catholicism (making everyone else a cult)? Why aren't [Lutherans] called a cult? Didn't they follow the interpretations of one man's view of the Bible?

First of all, the protestants and Roman Catholics share a common ancestry, but it isn’t quite true to say that historical Christianity WAS Catholicism. The Church in Rome became the most powerful church, but it wasn’t the only Christian church, even up to the time just before the reformation. Second, the various reformers had much in common with each other, so it would be hard to say that any protestant church is based on the teachings of one man (even if it is named as such). Finally, the goal of the reformers was not to deviate from historic Christianity, but to restore it.

Shadow: Do those Christian churches which believe that nothing can or should be added to the Bible also accept the Nicene Creed?

That depends what you mean by “accept”. If you mean accept as “we believe this as much as we believe Scipture,” I would say no. But, if you mean accept as “we believe that this is an accurate summary of scriptural principles,” I would say yes.

Mel-o-rama: You can't just say that a Christian is someone who believes in the Nicene Creed. Such a definition is biased by those who wish to call Mormons non-Christian. It's almost as if you've already decided that Catholics and most Prostestants are Christian but Mormons are not and you're just looking for any excuses. It's true that Catholics and most Protestants believe the Nicene Creed while Mormons disagree with it. So some of you have come to the biased conclusion that you must believe in the Nicene Creed to be a Christian.

While I would not use the Nicene Creed to say whether or not someone is a Christian, I have to say that it predates Mormonism by hundreds of years, so I doubt it was a conspiracy against Mormons. It was, however, derived to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian beliefs.

Considering these unbiased definitions on what a Christian is, Mormons are indisputably Christians.

On what basis did you decide that these definitions were unbiased? Do you suppose that religioustolerance.org has no agenda?

TDA:I don't know about you but the contradiction is clear to me. Either Joseph is his father and he is descendent from David OR The Holy Ghost is his father and he is not descendent from david. Not both.

Matthew is writing primarily to Jews. By Jewish law, Joseph is Jesus’ father. This is the same law and tradition that is used to determine whether or not Jesus is from the line of David. For good measure, Luke provides Jesus’ lineage to David through Mary.

BTW the OT did NOT predict that the messiah would be of virgin birth, though people will dispute that claim by pointing to Isaiah 7:14 'behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son' The Hebrew word used by Isaiah here meant 'young woman' not virgin. Unfortunately, Mathews use of it in Mathew 1:23 led many early translations Iincluding King James)to use the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

Actually, the Isaiah passage could have meant either. When Matthew quoted Isaiah, however, he used the Greek word for virgin. This was not a mistake on Matthew’s part, but a clarification of the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. Any modern conservative translation would use the word virgin in Isaiah.
I tip my hat to those thinking christians that are both able to see the contradictions of the bible and are willing to admit them.
I must not be a “thinking” Christian, because I have researched all of the common “contradictions” to the point that I understand that they don’t exist. Here is a link for to some other non-thinking Christians, and their view on Bible contradictions: http://www.carm.org/bible_contradictions.htm

Holton: I believe this is my quote, but anyway, what about this statement or any of Mel's comments makes you think we're so different?

I don’t think Herodotus is referring to that quote when he refers to “Mel-o-rama’s stuff above.” That’s just the quote to which he’s responding.

Herodotus

01-02-2002, 01:36 PM

Thanks, Thought. You've hit some of the big ones.

Mel-o-rama

01-04-2002, 11:27 AM

Wow, I had stopped looking at this thread because it went on that tangent. Well, here's my first response if anyone's left to read it.

Herodotus and Thought: It's clear to me that you do not understand the Mormon religion. You have a set belief in your minds and you clearly don't want to consider anything that is different. You only see the differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations, but you refuse to see the similarities. Mormons really do believe there is a unique God and a unique Jesus who is the only way to heaven. Is there any other way I can say this?

You [Melorama] have taken a concept of God as Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, creator of the universe, and replaced it with an exhalted man from another planet/dimension, a created being, and a god among many.Thought, could you explain to me why an "exalted man from another planet/dimension, a created being, and a god among many" cannot be the God as "Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and creator of the universe"? You may ask me how that could possibly be. If you really want to know and if you will really listen, I will tell you.

You say that we are all created by God and that we are His spiritual children, but you don’t mean these things in the way Christians mean them.In your original quote you said that "Jesus is God's only begotten son on earth, in heaven, or anywhere else." You say that my adding the words "in the flesh" is wrong. Could you explain this further? We are all created by God. Doesn't that mean that we are begotten by God at least in the spirit? Doesn't the Bible say that we are the offspring of God? In saying that I'm wrong in adding "in the flesh", aren't you implying that God did not create us?

While I would not use the Nicene Creed to say whether or not someone is a Christian, I have to say that it predates Mormonism by hundreds of years, so I doubt it was a conspiracy against Mormons. It was, however, derived to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian beliefs.The Nicene Creed does predate the Mormons, but it doesn't predate the creation of the early Christian church. It's possible that the Nicene Creed is a conspiracy against Truth in general. But that would take us into Apostasy, which is in itself a whole new bag of worms. One question for you. It's a fact that some 90% of Christians believe in the Nicene Creed. Does this fact in itself "prove" that the Nicene Creed is Truth? Many of the posts in this thread seem to be using this logic. Maybe you can clarify.

On what basis did you decide that these definitions were unbiased? Do you suppose that religioustolerance.org has no agenda?I do not dispute that religioustolerance.org has a definite agenda, but I won't go into that here. But maybe you can explain to me how Encarta, Websters, and "most English dictionaries" are not unbiased. That's where the definitions came from. Can you find a dictionary definition of Christian that can exclude Mormons? While you're at it, maybe you can explain why the religious-based definitions on this thread are not biased.

I could keep this going on forever. I think it's amazing what great lengths you are willing to go in order to call Mormons non-Christian despite cold hard facts. I'd much rather talk about doctrine and other things than keep on defending the fact that Mormons are Christian.

Happy New Year to you all, too.

Herodotus

01-04-2002, 01:06 PM

Happy New Year, Mel.

I am not Christian, and have no strong interest is who is or isn't Christian. (I am, of course, a Greek, and while I give all the gods thier due, my primary worship is directed towards great Apollo. Athena also has a special place in my heart.) But if you tell me that Mormons believe there are other gods besides the 3-in-1, gods who happen not to matter to us, then I have to conclude that you're not what I think of when I think "Christian", or even "Judeo-Christian-Muslim".

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mel-o-rama

01-04-2002, 01:44 PM

Herodotus,

If we must, I can agree to disagree. But I still don't fully follow your logic. Please let me ask some clarifying questions.

Do you think that Mormons aren't Christian because they are polytheistic? You Greeks worship many gods, if I understand correctly, or you can choose which god you want to worship. With Mormons, we are only allowed to worship one God, and that is the God of Abraham, Moses, Adam, etc. This is the same God that people in the "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" group believe. Mormons worship no other gods. That would make us monotheistic, so I have a hard time seeing why Mormons don't belong to this group.

I am also interested to know what you (as a person outside the Christian faith) consider a "Christian" to be. So far I've heard no other definition than "90% of Christian denominations believe in the XXXX(insert any arbitrary doctrine), so whoever doesn't believe in it isn't Christian." Such a biased definition doesn't make logical sense to me, and I hope you can shed a different light.

Thought

01-04-2002, 02:17 PM

Mel-o-rama:You only see the differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations, but you refuse to see the similarities.

I see both. My point is that the differences outweigh the similarities. That was the whole point of the between/within thing. Also, did you see my results from the beliefnet quiz? Conservative Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Liberal Protestant, Seventh Day Adventist are all at the top (as far as being in line with my beliefs). Mormonism is at something below 50%, behind both Orthodox Judaism and Islam.

Thought, could you explain to me why an "exalted man from another planet/dimension, a created being, and a god among many" cannot be the God as "Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and creator of the universe"?

If he is a created being, he can’t be the Alpha, the beginning, or the creator of the universe.

In your original quote you said that "Jesus is God's only begotten son on earth, in heaven, or anywhere else." You say that my adding the words "in the flesh" is wrong. Could you explain this further?

I didn’t say it was wrong, exactly. You said that you agreed with my statement, but you changed it to fit your beliefs. It changed the meaning from “Jesus is God’s only begotten Son” to “God and his wife produced many spiritual offspring, but Jesus was the only Son he produced in earthly form.”

We are all created by God. Doesn't that mean that we are begotten by God at least in the spirit?

No. When you’re talking about people, “beget” means to father, or sire. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son because he is God’s only son by birth.

Doesn't the Bible say that we are the offspring of God?

Yes, in some translations, but does this mean that we were begotten/sired by God, or just that he created us? Note that in other places we are said to be God’s children through adoption. If God gave birth to us, why would he need to adopt us?

It's possible that the Nicene Creed is a conspiracy against Truth in general.

That’s certainly possible, but it was adhered to by the reformers who held no allegiance to the church in Rome, and instead looked to scripture as the only authority. Today, protestant churches don’t agree with it because the early church said so. They agree with it because it coincides with scripture.

One question for you. It's a fact that some 90% of Christians believe in the Nicene Creed. Does this fact in itself "prove" that the Nicene Creed is Truth?

No. (I haven’t seen that argued here.)

But maybe you can explain to me how Encarta, Websters, and "most English dictionaries" are not unbiased.

They have an incentive not to offend.

Can you find a dictionary definition of Christian that can exclude Mormons?

I can’t find a dictionary definition that would exclude anyone who CLAIMED to be a Christian. How helpful is that?

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why the religious-based definitions on this thread are not biased.

Did I say that? You’re the one claiming to have unbiased definitions and cold, hard facts.

I think it's amazing what great lengths you are willing to go in order to call Mormons non-Christian despite cold hard facts.

First, I haven’t gone to any lengths to do anything. I’m just telling you what I think, based on what you’ve said and on past conversations with Mormon friends. So far, all passers-by, who have cared to comment, have agreed with me. They must not be seeing the cold hard facts, either.

I'd much rather talk about doctrine and other things than keep on defending the fact that Mormons are Christian.

Feel free to talk about whatever you wish.

Mormons worship no other gods. That would make us monotheistic, so I have a hard time seeing why Mormons don't belong to this group.

You’d better check your dictionary definitions:
monotheism n. The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
polytheism n. The worship of OR BELIEF IN more than one god. (emphasis added)

Mel-o-rama

01-04-2002, 10:13 PM

Thought,

I had a worked up response for you at work, then the site went down, so you'll have to wait till Monday to get my full response. Here's something to tide you over.
monotheism n. The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
polytheism n. The worship of OR BELIEF IN more than one god.(emphasis added)I checked this definition as you suggested. And I still think we're monotheistic. Even though Mormons believe other gods can exist, we don't believe IN them (emphasis added). I'll let you figure that one out.

Mel-o-rama: We are all created by God. Doesn't that mean that we are begotten by God at least in the spirit?
Thought:No. When you’re talking about people, “beget” means to father, or sire. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son because he is God’s only son by birth.Do you refer to God as "Heavenly Father" or "Our Father who art in Heaven"? Also, are you implying that God fathered Jesus with Mary in a family way? I'm trying not to be blasphemous, but I'm having trouble with your definition of "beget". I still think of God as my father since He created me through my earthly father. I'll give you the rest on Monday.

Lucy

01-04-2002, 10:46 PM

Mel-o-rama,

I don't think anyone has said that there aren't strong similarities between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, just that they see important differences.

Monotheism is a big deal to monotheistic religions, and it means thinking only one God exists. Back when lots of people believed in many gods, it was not uncommon for a person to dedicate himself to one of them and worship that god exclusively. No one (including the dedicant) thought he was challenging the existence or importance of other gods, and the dedicant remained a polytheist.

The text of the Bible does suggest that the early Israelites may have believed there were other gods whom they weren't supposed to worship. On the other hand, modern Orthodox Jews might call me a blasphemer for suggesting it. By the time of Jesus, the Jews were quite monotheistic. The Christians inherited this monotheism from the Jews (as did the Moslems), which is why the Christians, who kinda sorta have three gods, make a big deal of how the trinity is really just ONE. Because the early Christians cared about the oneness and uniqueness of God.

I don't follow your distinction between believing IN something and believing it exists.

Mel-o-rama

01-04-2002, 11:23 PM

Hi again Lucy. Monotheism vs. polytheism. Herodotus above claims that he dedicates most of his worship to Appollo, even though he has a kind of affinity for Athena. Yet, I bet Herodotus can name all (or most) of the Greek gods. As a Mormon, I can name only one God (Elohim is one name), which is supposedly the same God you worship as a Jew. I know of no other God, at least not one I can name. That is how Mormons differ from polytheistic religions.

So, you may wonder why I can call myself monotheistic when I believe other gods exist. I think it's summarized best in the writings of Paul:
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;... 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
Another way to look at it: Let's say a pass a house going to work every day. It looks as if someone is living in it, but the owners never come out while I'm driving by. I believe that someone is living in that house, but I can't believe IN that person. I don't know his/her name. I don't know what they look like.

For the same reason, I can believe other gods exist, but there is no way I can believe IN them. I hope that helps to clarify the nitpicky semantics.

Lucy

01-04-2002, 11:43 PM

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that so long as you don't worship any other gods, the Jews think your religion is a fine one for a gentile. But Judaism isn't nearly as picky about what other folks believe as Christianity is. It's the (other?) Christians who may have problems with your worship.

Andy Lang

01-05-2002, 05:22 PM

Be carefull about going back too far with the history of Chrisianity. If you do, you might discover what honest historians have: The Christ of Nazertith never existed.

He is a mythical composite invented to control your thoughts.

What was it Shaupenhauer said?

I think it was "Religion is animal training. I teaches you how not to think."

Double High C

01-05-2002, 07:53 PM

Mel,

If you believe that one true god exists, and that the other "gods" are not really gods at all, then you are a monotheist.

OTOH, if you believe that other (true) gods exist, then you are not a monotheist.

If you worship one god but believe that other (true) gods MAY exist, then with respect to the monotheism, you are agnostic (to use the word loosely, for purposes of analogy only).

Biblical quote from your prior post:
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;... 1 Corinthians 8:5-6"

I am not a Christian, but it seems that the operative word is "called". Some could interpret the quote as implying that the other "gods" are not to be worshiped, because they are not "true" gods, while the "father" is the only being who created and rules the earth.
[ This Message was edited by: Battery Park City on 2002-01-05 19:59 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Battery Park City on 2002-01-05 20:03 ]

Mel-o-rama

01-05-2002, 10:57 PM

Lucy, thanks for your comment. I am glad. I can also say that I've never met a Jew I didn't like. I can see why Jews are "Chosen".

Andy, you have my interest. I have always assumed that Jesus Christ was a historical fact. He is mentioned in Josephus. He's mentioned in the Islam books. I don't know where else he's mentioned, but I'll listen to whatever evidence you have that he didn't exist. (Of course, I'm speaking of the man Jesus as recorded in secular historical records.)

BPC, last night I saw an interesting show about fractals. If Mormons aren't polytheistic or monotheistic, maybe we're fractaltheistic (that is something in between). I definitely know I'm not polytheistic, and I will continue to claim to be monotheistic because I only know one God.

About the scripture I quoted: When taken in context with surrounding verses, it actually is speaking about not worshipping false gods, so you are correct in your "called" interpretation. However, I quoted the scripture because of the parenthetical phrase, which could be interpreted to mean "(even though there really do exist many [true] gods and lords)...there is but one God to us." Even though other denominations may not interpret this scripture the same way, it does show how Mormons believe that other gods exist, but only one God to us, and that last part is what makes us monothiestic.

Plato

01-06-2002, 05:37 AM

"I definitely know I'm not polytheistic, and I will continue to claim to be monotheistic because I only know one God."

Mel:
Polytheism means belief in the existence of more than one god. You said you only "know" one God and therefore you claim that makes you monotheistic. My reply is...well, almost.

The deciding factor based on the definition of polytheism is: Do you believe there is ONLY one God, period. The minute you deny this or admit the possibility that there may be other gods somewhere, it is irrelevant whether you know these gods by name or not, whether you worship them or ignore them, if you abandon the belief in the existence of ONLY one God, you become a polytheist.

I would say this is very different from the "Are Mormons Christian" thread. Here, you know exactly and unambiguously what the world means by monotheism and polytheism. The only question should be the one of determining where your belief fits.

Why invent your own unique meaning?

Polygamist

01-07-2002, 12:06 AM

Mel-o-rama, you don't realize what you're getting into when you ask Andy Lang a question. He'll give you some cock-eyed conspiracy theory. He'll throw in some stuff about Mormons and Catholics and how Christians in general want to mind control everyone. You can't really take him seriously. Don't let it be said that I didn't warn you!

Mel-o-rama

01-07-2002, 02:43 AM

Well, y'all. I'm going to try to wean myself from these religious topics over the next week. It's time for me to hit the books. I can say that's it's been fun so far.

Plato, I still can't bring myself to call my religion "polytheistic" because of the characteristics of religions that are definitely "polytheistic." In other words, if I were to list the characteristics of known polythestic religions in one column (Greek/Roman, Buddhism, Nordic, etc.) and the characteristics of the known monotheistic religions in another column (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, etc.), then in a third column list the characteristics of the Mormon religion, that third column would resemble the monotheistic column much more closely than it would the polytheistic one. To me it doesn't make much sense to call us polytheistic when we have so much more in common with the monotheistic.

While we're on this subject, let me ask you where you feel Catholics fit. It seems to me that they not only worship Jesus, but they also worship Mary (who is free from sin?) and the many patron saints. Don't the Catholics ask Mary, the Holy Mother of God, to pray for them and their sins? (Catholics feel free to correct me here.) So are Catholics monotheistic or polytheistic?

I don't think the distinction is as clear-cut as Thought's dictionary definition would lead us to believe. I think it's kind of like the problem of determining whether ketchup is a solid or a liquid. (By the way, don't you find it interesting that Thought would stand by his dictionary definition to say Mormon's are polytheistic, but then dismiss my dictionary definitions that say Mormons are Christian? Go figure.)

By far, Mormons consider themselves to be monotheistic. Wouldn't it make sense that we would know how to classify ourselves?

Branwell

01-07-2002, 09:23 AM

It seems to me that they [Catholics] not only worship Jesus, but they also worship Mary (who is free from sin?) and the many patron saints. Don't the Catholics ask Mary, the Holy Mother of God, to pray for them and their sins? (Catholics feel free to correct me here.)

Catholics ask Mary & other saints to intercede (pray) for them, but do not worship Mary or any other saint.

The distinction should be obvious.

If I asked you to pray for me, would I be worshiping you?

Thought

01-07-2002, 09:44 AM

Mel-o-rama:By the way, don't you find it interesting that Thought would stand by his dictionary definition to say Mormon's are polytheistic, but then dismiss my dictionary definitions that say Mormons are Christian? Go figure.)

I must not have made myself clear enough. The only reason I dismissed the dictionary definition of “Christian” was because it is utterly meaningless. The definitions of monotheism and polytheism, by contrast, are quite clear. Also, the only reason I cited dictionary definitions, rather than just saying what the words meant, is because you claimed to consider dictionary definitions to be cold, hard facts. I guess you’re no longer making that claim.

In other words, if I were to list the characteristics of known polytheistic religions in one column (Greek/Roman, Buddhism, Nordic, etc.) and the characteristics of the known monotheistic religions in another column (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.), then in a third column list the characteristics of the Mormon religion, that third column would resemble the monotheistic column much more closely than it would the polytheistic one. To me it doesn't make much sense to call us polytheistic when we have so much more in common with the monotheistic.

For the record, I agree with everything in this up to the last sentence. I don’t see how commonality can be used to change the definitions of words. For example, if a man dresses, talks, and acts like a woman, does he become a woman? If he believes he is a woman, does that make him so?

Mel-o-rama

01-07-2002, 10:07 AM

Branwell:

I can see your point. I'm glad that Catholics do not worship Mary or other patron saints, and it looks like I'll have to retract my question about Catholics being polytheistic.

Thought:

The only reason I dismissed the dictionary definition of “Christian” was because it is utterly meaningless. The definitions of monotheism and polytheism, by contrast, are quite clear.I guess I'm at a loss as to how one definition from the same dictionary can be meaningless, while another is quite clear. It appears to me that both definitions are quite clear. I guess the meaning to your term "meaningless" could be translated to mean "not having the meaning I want it to have." Based on the dictionary definitions alone, you can't both have that Mormons are non-Christian and Mormons are polythestic. I, too, suffer from the conundrum. If we go by the dictionary definitions alone, it appears that either I must admit Mormons are polytheistic, or you must admit Mormons are Christian. I guess it seems we both can't have it both ways.

Griffin 1

01-07-2002, 10:19 AM

Mel: What is an atheist then? Is it someone who does not believe in the existence of God, or is it someone who doesn't worship God?

Thought

01-07-2002, 10:35 AM

I guess I'm at a loss as to how one definition from the same dictionary can be meaningless, while another is quite clear.

Well, I explained this briefly before, but I guess a more detailed exposition is needed. According to dictionary.com, here are the definitions of Christian (noun):

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

The first half of this, like I said earlier, could apply to anyone who claimed to be a Christian. Would you accept a definition of "dog" that read, "any animal that claimed to be a dog?" Also, this requires agreement on just who "Jesus" is/was.

The second half requires agreement not only on who Jesus was, but also what His life and teachings were, and on what "the religion" based on those things looks like. Did Jesus live in the Middle East only, or also in America? Did he teach that there would be a final judgment when he returned, or did he say he might stop by from time to time before his official "second coming?"

2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Again, what are those teachings? Do they include teachings in America, or only in the Middle East? What does it mean to live according to His teachings?

How are we doing so far? Has this definition resolved any questions? Let's look at Webster's.

1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.

This definition suffers from the same problems as before. Which Jesus Christ? What truth? Which doctrines?

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. --Acts xi. 26.

These disciples could not have been Mormons.

2. One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes an adherent of an opposing system.

This is an entirely different meaning, but not of much use in a religious context.

3. (Eccl.) (a) One of a Christian denomination which rejects human creeds as bases of fellowship, and sectarian names...

This usage refers to a specific denomination to the exclusion of all others. Clearly not what we're after.

Maybe Princeton's WordNet can help?

a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and is a member of a Christian denomination

Aah. A Christian person is someone who is a member of a Christian denomination. Very useful, indeed. Which denominations, then, are Christian? What about non-denominational churches?

THIS is why I called the dictionary definitions of "Christian" useless. Can you derive anything useful from these?

Mel-o-rama

01-07-2002, 02:10 PM

Thought: Ring around the rosies! Should I waste anymore time with your circular logic in using the definitions you've picked? If you're going to say that Mormons don't live according to the teachings of Jesus, it is clear you don't understand us at all. You are reading too much into your dictionary definitions, and I'm not going to waste any more time pointing out the details. Take out your circular logic, and you will see that each of your dictionary definitions define Mormons as Christians.

Thought

01-07-2002, 04:44 PM

Mel-o-rama:Ring around the rosies! Should I waste anymore time with your circular logic in using the definitions you've picked?

I'm not sure if you understand the definition of circular logic, because it's the clearly dictionary definitions that are using it, not me. Circular logic, for example, is attempting to define a Christian as one who professes to be a Christian or one who is a member of a Christian denomination. It's circular reasoning, yes, but that's not my fault.

If you're going to say that Mormons don't live according to the teachings of Jesus, it is clear you don't understand us at all.

I didn't say that. I just wondered which teachings, that's all. For example, did Jesus teach about eternal marriage? Well, that depends which Jesus you're talking about, doesn't it?

JMO

01-07-2002, 05:27 PM

On 2002-01-07 16:44, Thought wrote:
For example, did Jesus teach about eternal marriage? Well, that depends which Jesus you're talking about, doesn't it?

Well, I might express it a bit differently. It depends on how much of the teachings of Jesus Christ (there is only one) you have available to you. And in all fairness, it may also depend on what you believe about the accuracy and validity of those teachings.

I recently encountered an exchange of views in which someone declared that JW's are not Christians. And suddenly it no longer mattered to me whether other people believe that "Mormons" are Christians.

There's an Edwin Markham poem in here somewhere -

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win.
We drew a circle that brought him in.

(Hope nobody finds that offensive. I mean it in the nicest possible way.)

Mel-o-rama

01-07-2002, 10:22 PM

Sigh!

Thought, I just realized that I read your penultimate post the wrong way (in my haste). I see that you were trying to argue that the dictionary "Christian" definitions use circular reasoning, and that makes them useless. Since that was your intention, my "Ring around the Rosies" comments probably didn't make much sense.

I would definitely agree that the last definition you listed is circular. I would however disagree that "having a belief in Christ" is such a circular definition. As JMO points out, there was just one Christ who lived on this earth. Those who believe in him are Christians, and those who don't are not. It's plain and simple to me and non-circular.

Now I'm tired. Tomorrow I'm going to watch "Lord of the Rings" as I try to forget about circular logic. Frodo, hear I come!

Plato

01-08-2002, 12:22 AM

On 2002-01-07 17:27, JMO wrote:
[quote]
Well, I might express it a bit differently. It depends on how much of the teachings of Jesus Christ (there is only one) you have available to you. And in all fairness, it may also depend on what you believe about the accuracy and validity of those teachings.

Very interesting. Just curious. Does the Mormon Church allow people to read the Book of Mormon and come to their own (possibly erroneous) conclusions or is there some final top Mormon judge or authority deciding what is orthodox Mormon belief and what is not?

(I read somewhere that the Mormon Church had several splinter groups, each claiming to be more faithful to the original founding principles than the main body of Mormons-a situation not unlike Christianity and the Catholics. The Mormon Church is not yet in its second century. Give it 2000 years and we may one day ask (if it is not already happening), "who is a true Mormon?".

JMO

01-08-2002, 08:38 AM

This is a good question and I'm not ignoring you, but right now is not a good time for me to address it. Hang on, Plato, I'll try to get back to you on it.

Or Mel-O-Rama can feel free to jump in.

Thought

01-08-2002, 08:47 AM

JMO:Well, I might express it a bit differently. It depends on how much of the teachings of Jesus Christ (there is only one) you have available to you. And in all fairness, it may also depend on what you believe about the accuracy and validity of those teachings.

That’s fair. The point still remains that “one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ” is a useless definition because there is an open question as to what those teachings were.

By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that Mormon’s believe in two different Christs (I couldn’t figure out the plural of Jesus). I was only trying to distinguish between the two separate supposed visits to earth.

I recently encountered an exchange of views in which someone declared that JW's are not Christians. And suddenly it no longer mattered to me whether other people believe that "Mormons" are Christians.

At least one of my Mormon friends locally does not consider JW’s to be Christian, because “they ignore many of the Bible’s teachings.”

Mel-o-rama

01-08-2002, 08:55 AM

Plato:

"who is a true Mormon?"Funny you should bring up that question. There are many splinter groups off of the "official" Mormon church. The most notable is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ LDS, which has been recently renamed to "Community of Christ"(Am I right, you RLDS people?) The funny thing is that the RLDS are emphatic in saying that they're not Mormons, and I think that is true with all splinter groups. So, I guess everyone wants to be a "Christian", but nobody wants to be a "Mormon."

As to your first paragraph, I'm sure you're familiar with the "Moroni promise". In the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, Moroni writes that if you read the book, think about what it says, pray to God to know if it's true, then the Holy Spirit will testify of its truthfulness.

Mormon church leaders will come out and say what certain parts of the Bible and Book of Mormon mean, but they don't give us everything. There's the idea of reading the scriptures over and over and learning doctrine for ourselves. If we have a question, we can either turn to our leaders, or we can find the answer ourselves by considering the questionable doctrine, searching the scriptures, praying to God, and receiving some kind of answer. We learn our doctrine line by line, precept by precept, here a little and there a little.

We don't just rely on the words of our preacher as most churches do. And Andy, if you're still reading, I'll answer that this is one evidence why I don't think Mormons are under this mind control you say Christians are under. We think on our own.

Father of two

01-08-2002, 08:59 AM

I hope this helps:

Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?

M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:
"There are many who say that Latter-day Saints believe in a 'different Jesus' than do other Christians and that we are therefore not 'Christian' . . . We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know. . . .

"What we want most of all is for Christian and non-Christian alike to understand that we love the Lord Jesus Christ. We revere His name. We count it a great honor and privilege to take upon ourselves the name of Christ as Christians and as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Thought

01-08-2002, 09:14 AM

Mel-o-rama:We don't just rely on the words of our preacher as most churches do.

Where do you get the idea that this is what "most churches do?" Most arguments I see in these various threads, at least from Protestants, use scripture as support. They don't say, "my pastor says this, so that's the way it is." The Catholics sometimes refer to their catechism, which I guess may be construed as reliance on a "preacher," but they only do that when they're explaining Catholic doctrine, not when they're defending it. Can you explain where this idea comes from?

Mel-o-rama

01-08-2002, 03:42 PM

Thought,

When I made my statement about relying on preachers, I'm going on my personal experience with friends and colleagues. A lot of my friends have never read the Bible from beginning to end. It seems to me with these people that the preacher preaches, the people listen and accept, but they don't understand.

Of course I may be wrong. My opponents here on the forum do seem to be intelligent. Do you mind if I ask all of you (who are still reading) if you've read the whole Bible? Do you study the scriptures frequently? Do you ever question what your preacher tells you? Do you ever pray for guidance and truth? I'm just curious.

Anonymous

01-08-2002, 03:52 PM

I have read the whole Bible. I have taken many theology and scripture courses. But I am yet to come across a preacher whom said anything that contradicts what I have studied. Most preachers I have come across have only been trying to help people in their spiritual lives and hasn't offered anything that isn't something that shouldn't be accepted without study. Maybe I have just been lucky in the services I attend.

In response to previous postings. A Christian normally holds the pretext of someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity and is God who became man to die for our sins and saved us from hell. I respect the Mormons love for Jesus, but by this definition, they are not Christians. Should that definition hold? That is a matter of debate.

[ This Message was edited by: average_student on 2002-01-08 16:38 ]

Thought

01-08-2002, 09:41 PM

Mel-o-rama:Do you mind if I ask all of you (who are still reading) if you've read the whole Bible?

All of it at least once, many parts several times.

Do you study the scriptures frequently?

Yes.

Do you ever question what your preacher tells you?

He expects us to test everything he says against scripture, and confront him if we think he got something wrong. He hasn’t yet, to my knowledge.

Do you ever pray for guidance and truth?

Yes.

These are things that all Christians should do.

Mel-o-rama

01-08-2002, 11:11 PM

Average_student and Thought. I'm actually glad to read your response. You have all been worthy opponents.

Andy Lang

01-09-2002, 10:42 AM

So how do Mormons justify their original founders having more than 50 wives and now saying that it-polygamy-is wrong?

Was there reading of scriptures wrong in the beginning, but right now?

Have times changed, or your revelation?

Could it be that you made a mistake then and maybe are making some now?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Holton

01-09-2002, 02:08 PM

How do "other Christians" justify the prophets of the Bible doing the same (polygamy) and now scream that it is wrong?

Griffin 1

01-09-2002, 02:11 PM

On 2002-01-09 14:08, Holton wrote:
How do "other Christians" justify the prophets of the Bible doing the same (polygamy) and now scream that it is wrong?

Different times.

Holton

01-09-2002, 02:12 PM

Who determines when/how times change?

Anonymous

01-09-2002, 02:33 PM

When Christ came, times changed.

Holton

01-09-2002, 02:35 PM

So that was it? Time doesn't change after that?

Anonymous

01-09-2002, 02:43 PM

I was just offering a simplistic answer. Palegomy was common for the old profits, but after Christ came, his teachings were spread that a man and a women become one flesh and monogomy has been held since. With the exception of the Mormon Church that is.

The Mister

01-09-2002, 03:23 PM

On 2002-01-09 14:08, Holton wrote:
How do "other Christians" justify the prophets of the Bible doing the same (polygamy) and now scream that it is wrong?I think average_student has it wrong. As I mentioned in another thread, the Bible doesn't ever say polygamy is wrong, OT or NT. The OT *does* say that high priests and kings should have no more than one wife, and the NT says that any leader (elder and above) of a church should have exactly one wife.

Not that the kings in the OT ever actually obeyed that rule.

Why present day Christians are so against it these days is another issue altogether. I don't really know the answer. Maybe now that females make up about half of the population there's no reason to have more than one wife. Way back when, mortality for men was much worse than it was for women, mostly because of wars.

At least, that's how I've heard it.

Holton

01-09-2002, 03:36 PM

On 2002-01-09 15:23, The Mister wrote:
...Maybe now that females make up about half of the population there's no reason to have more than one wife. Way back when, mortality for men was much worse than it was for women, mostly because of wars.

At least, that's how I've heard it.

Not that it totally explains it, but the early Mormons faced a similar situation at the time the practice began. Because of the acts of many nice Missouri men, many women were left widows without the means to support themselves. Again, I'm not claiming that is THE reason for the re-introduction of the practice. I believe there was inspiration involved.

The Drunken Actuary

01-09-2002, 03:40 PM

On 2002-01-09 15:36, Holton wrote:

On 2002-01-09 15:23, The Mister wrote:
...Maybe now that females make up about half of the population there's no reason to have more than one wife. Way back when, mortality for men was much worse than it was for women, mostly because of wars.

At least, that's how I've heard it.

Not that it totally explains it, but the early Mormons faced a similar situation at the time the practice began. Because of the acts of many nice Missouri men, many women were left widows without the means to support themselves. Again, I'm not claiming that is THE reason for the re-introduction of the practice. I believe there was inspiration involved.

Some have argued that this practice offers women more freedom as they have more options on who to marry; all of the men are available to them for marriage as opposed to only the unmarried men. Anyone buy that?

Holton

01-09-2002, 03:42 PM

No.

Polygamist

01-09-2002, 03:56 PM

Now we're talking my language! TDA, I read your polygamy argument in the Exam 2 Microeconomics Book. Very interesting. It said, imagine a wife with a no good husband. She tells him to ship up, he doesn't, then she leaves him to join the family next door. It was hilarious! He also compared anti-polygamy legislation with affirmative action. What a hoot!

By the way, I agree with Holton. In the early Mormon church, there were more women and they had to be taken care of while the Mormons were getting kicked around. Polygamy seemed the best answer. Kill off 80% of the men on the earth today, and we'll see if we still think polygamy is wrong.

Also, the idea of marrying only one wife was set in law in the Old Testament before Jesus ever said it. Clearly there are times when exceptions are allowed.

And Andy, none of our early church leaders had more than 50 wives. I think Brigham Young had the most and he had somewhere around 25 wives and 56 children. You must have been thinking about children. Like I said before, you're just jealous that you can't have more than one wife.

The Drunken Actuary

01-09-2002, 04:02 PM

I can't imagine being jealous because you can;t have more than one wife. I can barely handle the one I have. :smile: :wink:

Polygamist

01-09-2002, 04:31 PM

Tell me about, TDA. Imagine all that nagging times five, and they all gain up on me.

The Drunken Actuary

01-09-2002, 05:40 PM

Yeah, its like when my wife jokingly says something about "I was at my girlfriend's" (like when I;m at the library all day studying) and I say, "Are you kidding, I can barely handle you, let alone a girfriend too." She laughs too.

Griffin 1

01-09-2002, 05:42 PM

On 2002-01-09 14:12, Holton wrote:
Who determines when/how times change?

Society.

Andy Lang

01-09-2002, 08:08 PM

[Polygamy seemed the best answer. Kill off 80% of the men on the earth today, and we'll see if we still think polygamy is wrong.]

I think if you ask most women a good vibrator and artifical insemination would be preferable, in which case, killing off 99% of the men would be great.

I'm aiming to use ny seed for them all and for the occasioanal outlier.

Lee Mellon

01-09-2002, 08:29 PM

I think if you ask most women a good vibrator and artifical insemination would be preferableAndy, that must be the answer you get. That's not the answer I get.

Griffin 1

01-09-2002, 08:37 PM

On 2002-01-09 20:08, Andy Lang wrote:
I'm aiming to use ny seed for them all and for the occasioanal outlier.

What's so special about New York seed?

Herodotus

01-09-2002, 08:51 PM

Polygamy mostly happens in places where there is a large disparity of wealth/power among men, and women are economic assets. In places where a woman with kids costs more to keep than she brings in, powerful men don't vie to get more of them.

Where there are great disparities in wealth, but a woman with children is a net economic loss, powerful men have gone in more for prostitutes and mistresses.

Mel-o-rama

01-09-2002, 09:24 PM

Andy:

I'm impressed. You sure know how to get spice up a thread. Look at how many responses you got in such a short time.

Herodotus:

Interesting theory. I haven't thought of it that way before. One wife is enough for me, so I won't be adding much to this subject. All I know is that Mormons aren't allowed to practice polygamy now. And I'll agree with Holton, JMO, Polygamist and the other Mormons about what they said.

Holton

01-10-2002, 09:03 AM

Griffin,

Are you saying that society determines when/if the practices of prophets/The Bible should change? That doesn't sound like a good reason to stop the practce of polygamy if the prophets of old were inspired to do so. I think society would oftentimes lead astray from the path of the Lord.

Griffin 1

01-10-2002, 09:36 PM

On 2002-01-10 09:03, Holton wrote:
Are you saying that society determines when/if the practices of prophets/The Bible should change?

I am saying that as society changes, practices change. The Bible, in some cases, reflects the practices of the times. The prophets, being dead, don't change practices.

That doesn't sound like a good reason to stop the practce of polygamy if the prophets of old were inspired to do so.

The prophets all had long hair and wore what looked like dresses (in the movies, anyway). So what? That was the way of their society.

I think society would oftentimes lead astray from the path of the Lord.

That's probably true. For some practices, that would be a big deal. For others, perhaps not. Do you think the Lord has laid out all practices, or do you think it is possible that in some circumstances, the path preferred by the Lord is to follow that of society's?

Holton

01-11-2002, 08:22 AM

I don't think the Lord is going to suggest what brand of toothpaste to use, but I would think practices such as polygamy would be important enough for him to provide guidance.

Griffin 1

01-11-2002, 08:26 AM

On 2002-01-11 08:22, Holton wrote:
I don't think the Lord is going to suggest what brand of toothpaste to use, but I would think practices such as polygamy would be important enough for him to provide guidance.

Sure it is. Follow society's norm.

Holton

01-11-2002, 08:37 AM

On 2002-01-11 08:26, Griffin wrote:
Sure it is. Follow society's norm.

If that were the case, we would all get divorced (or at least cheat on our spouses), not care for our children (or at least abuse them a little), honesty would no longer appear in Webster's ... Need I say more?

The Drunken Actuary

01-11-2002, 08:40 AM

On 2002-01-11 08:37, Holton wrote:

On 2002-01-11 08:26, Griffin wrote:
Sure it is. Follow society's norm.

If that were the case, we would all get divorced (or at least cheat on our spouses), not care for our children (or at least abuse them a little), honesty would no longer appear in Webster's ... Need I say more?

If you think that is society's norm then we all already do these things.

Holton

01-11-2002, 08:47 AM

That is my point. It sounds to me like Thought is taking society's norm as "the right thing to do". I think that is a very questionable approach. Take abortion for example. Evidently, due to current law and practice, abortion is okay by society. Does the Lord think so. I would say no.

The Drunken Actuary

01-11-2002, 09:01 AM

On 2002-01-11 08:47, Holton wrote:
That is my point. It sounds to me like Thought is taking society's norm as "the right thing to do". I think that is a very questionable approach. Take abortion for example. Evidently, due to current law and practice, abortion is okay by society. Does the Lord think so. I would say no.

Society would say yes. Perhaps society is allowed to continue because god approves.

[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-11 09:03 ]

Griffin 1

01-11-2002, 09:17 AM

On 2002-01-11 08:37, Holton wrote:
If that were the case, we would all get divorced (or at least cheat on our spouses), not care for our children (or at least abuse them a little), honesty would no longer appear in Webster's ... Need I say more?

I don't believe that divorce, cheating, child abuse, and dishonesty is society's norm.

Besides, even if it was, when was polygamy required?

The Mister

01-11-2002, 09:49 AM

On 2002-01-11 09:17, Griffin wrote:
I don't believe that divorce, cheating, child abuse, and dishonesty is society's norm.
Besides, even if it was, when was polygamy required?Apparently in Onan's case. :wink:

Holton

01-11-2002, 10:03 AM

I don't have any stats to base this on, but you have to admit that these things are very prevalent in the world today.

I never said polygamy was or should be required. My argument is only that society's norm cannot be the basis by which we judge religious based practices.

The Drunken Actuary

01-11-2002, 10:38 AM

On 2002-01-11 10:03, Holton wrote:
I don't have any stats to base this on, but you have to admit that these things are very prevalent in the world today.

I suspect these things are no more prevelant than in the past. With the possible exception of divorce, which I think can be a positive end of an unhappy marriage (no I'm not divorced myself, nor do I plan to be). Children have been horribly abused in the past.

Griffin 1

01-11-2002, 12:50 PM

On 2002-01-11 10:03, Holton wrote:
I don't have any stats to base this on, but you have to admit that these things are very prevalent in the world today.

You are using definition 3. I am using either of definitions 1 or 2.

1 : an authoritative standard : MODEL
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3 : AVERAGE: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c : a widespread practice, procedure, or custom : RULE <standing ovations became the norm>

I never said polygamy was or should be required.

No, you said:

On 2002-01-11 08:37, Holton wrote:
If that were the case, we would all get divorced (or at least cheat on our spouses), not care for our children (or at least abuse them a little), honesty would no longer appear in Webster's ... Need I say more?

In other words, if divorce and child abuse are the norm, and if we should not disprove of actions which fall within society's norms, then we should all get divorced and abuse children.

Looking to the past then, it follows that polygamy was required, right?

My argument is only that society's norm cannot be the basis by which we judge religious based practices.

Unless some religious-based practices are derived from society's norms.

Holton

01-11-2002, 01:15 PM

I agree our definitions may be a bit different (a recurring theme on these religious threads), but are very similar. I am mostly referring to the "average" or common actions of society, but also think what is considered acceptable (definition 2) is also often contrary to what the Lord would ask of us.

Looking at the past I still don't think polygamy was "required", either in Biblical times or early LDS history.

I am working under the assumption that all religious based practices are inspired.

Griffin 1

01-11-2002, 01:51 PM

One thing that got away from me is realizing that you have assumed that I am saying that all of society's practices should be considered moral.

Consider the practice of cousins getting married. In most of the US, 1st cousins getting married would not be approved. Even 2nd or 3rd cousins getting married would not be approved. By the time you get out to 7th or 8th cousins, most people do not care.

In Korea, however, nth cousins getting married is not approved (even for very large n).

So, do I think it's wrong for 10th cousins to marry? In the US, no. In Korea, I would say it is wrong. And I would also say that polygamy falls into the same category as this, and not that of divorce and child abuse.

Holton

01-11-2002, 01:53 PM

So you would say that polygamy is okay in certain circustances?

Griffin 1

01-11-2002, 01:56 PM

I already indicated that I thought it was okay during Bible times.

Thought

01-11-2002, 02:48 PM

God has a history of meeting people where they are, and taking them to where he wants them to be. As example, consider divorce.Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."I believe that the same applies to polygamy:

1. It wasn't God's design for marriage.
2. God's people did it anyway.
3. God led his people back to his original design (starting with the clergy of the early church, if not before).

[ This Message was edited by: Thought on 2002-01-11 14:49 ]

Holton

01-11-2002, 02:58 PM

Then why was plural marriage practiced mostly (not sure) by spiritual men who should have been very open to the promptings of the Spirit? I realize they were not perfect men, but they should not have been leading the people astray.

Thought

01-11-2002, 03:11 PM

Holton, why are you asking me to explain a situation you don't even know to be true?

[ This Message was edited by: Thought on 2002-01-11 15:11 ]

Holton

01-11-2002, 04:12 PM

I am assuming it to be true. Using the Bible as our source of truth, we see many examples of prophets/men of God practicing this and little (if any) attributed to good ordinary men (ignoring anyone from Sodom and Gomorrah and the like).

Thought

01-11-2002, 04:28 PM

Well, okay then, there are several possible explanations:

1. We don't know much about the working stiffs of the day. Your assumption that they were less often polygamists is groundless.

2. When where the Israelites ever faithful to God for an extended period? A recurring theme of the OT is God's faithfulness to them in spite of their unfaithfulness.

3. David was called a man after God's own heart. Was he always on the straight and narrow?

4. The Spirit was not yet (until Acts) in the habit of prompting people to do God's will.

[ This Message was edited by: Thought on 2002-01-11 16:29 ]

JMO

01-13-2002, 09:51 AM

On 2002-01-08 00:22, Plato wrote:

Very interesting. Just curious. Does the Mormon Church allow people to read the Book of Mormon and come to their own (possibly erroneous) conclusions or is there some final top Mormon judge or authority deciding what is orthodox Mormon belief and what is not?

(I read somewhere that the Mormon Church had several splinter groups, each claiming to be more faithful to the original founding principles than the main body of Mormons-a situation not unlike Christianity and the Catholics. The Mormon Church is not yet in its second century. Give it 2000 years and we may one day ask (if it is not already happening), "who is a true Mormon?".

OK, first about the splinter groups. There are some people in Utah who call themselves Mormons, but they are NOT members of the LDS church. Andy can givee you all the gory details about what baddies they are, but from the point of view of the LDS church, they "fell away" when they refused to accept the revelation on the ending of the practice of polygamy. But the dissenters themselves do prefer to use the term Mormon. (And that's why Andy gets confused, because he seems to think that anybody using the name Mormon must belong to the same church. The LDS church is trying to eliminate the use of Mormon in describing ourselves, with a few exceptions like "The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.")

About coming to our own conclusions - In one sense that is exactly what we are supposed to do. But to understand what that means, there are some KEY assumptions. One is that there is ongoing communication from God to us. Another is that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit, and that it is the medium through which the communication is done.

PARABLE 1: Suppose somebody refuses to accept the idea of micro-organisms. This person does the classic experiment of putting samples on a petri dish and waits for them to grow. But the person also decides that the nutrient in the petri dish is unnecessary. So their experiment fails. Are they right to discount the existence of organisms? Or did they fail to do the experiment correctly?

PARABLE 2
A friend of my was amazed (almost, you might say, appalled) to learn the our church leadership in Salt Lake City always makes its decisions unanimously. For matters relating to the whole church, this would mean 15 men (the Presidency is made up of the Prophet and two counselors, plus the 12 Apostles). Before reaching the decision, there is usually plenty of debate. But the final decision is one that all 15 really feel good about. My take on this one is that they must all be getting guidance from the same source.

PARABLE 3
At the local level, the leadership also consists of 15 men. A Stake is made up of several local congregations, called Wards. Each stake has a 3-man presidency and a High Council made up of 12 men. My husband has been on High Councils both here in Charlotte NC and back in Ontario CA (suburb of Los Angeles if you are geographically challenged).

Without giving me specific details of the issues, he has told me about sessions of the High Council in which the Stake President has changed his view after the debate. Also when my husband has felt to change his view. But the result in all cases is good feeling by all 15 about the conclusions.

END PARABLES

As I alluded the other day, there are matters of doctrine on which the scriptures and pronouncements of living prophets provide specific guidance. Members are encouraged to pray and learn for themselves by the Holy Ghost that this is correct information. But, as Parable 1 suggests, if they come to an erroneous conclusion in that case, the problem is assumed to be with the member.

In the past, members who have publicly contested the correctness of prophetic teachings are first counseled to change their ways. If they fail to do so, they can be excommunicated. (After all, if they disagree with the Church's position, maybe they really shouldn't associate themselves with that Church. Time to find another more in keeping with what they believe.)

Excommunication can also be used as a temporary part of the repentance process.

Also a Bishop who abuses the financial trust placed in him will find himself excommunicated when the evidence has been considered by the Stake leeadership (those 15 men at the local level). This, thankfully, is pretty rare.

Goodbye for now. I may be back, especially if there are more questions.

Carol (JMO) Marler
@home