Jump to content

Menu

Have you seen Apologia's blog that states LDS are not Christians? Thoughts?


Samiam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is attacking the Mormans a national sport over there. Ok the 18 year old "elders" on their bicycles with white shirts and ties get kicked a bit here but they are so polite most people overlook it. (elders here tend to be closer to 70).

 

Eta. It seems like a pointless and mean thing to be writing about and I can't imagine why you would feel the need to include anti-Morman sentiment (or anti-any other religion) in general educational materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm offended on behalf of all the Christians who are told they are not real Christians or Christian enough. It is for these reasons Apologia and BJU and others like them won't even get a passing glance when I search for books and materials.

 

Yep....me either. It just burns me up. Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to stir things up even more but... Many Catholics and Catholic curriculum providers use and recommend Apologia. If there were to be an anti-Catholic blog post from Apologia, a lot of people would want to know about it.

 

I have a vague memory of a shift in the Apologia leadership not too long ago and I think it was about faith issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS church falls under the broad umbrella of Christianity, obviously. However, traditionally, Christianity has been considered to be a religion that is both monotheistic and Trinitarian. Mormons are neither those things. Some of my Mormon friends here in AZ consider themselves Christian anyway, but most other Christians would consider monotheism and trinitarianism as central and non-negotiable. That does not mean they hate Mormons, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm guessing there's some pressure from their biggest customer base to define what "real Christianity" is.

 

They didn't need to respond at all. Their customer base should decide for itself what "real Christianity" is and act accordingly, for crying out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS church falls under the broad umbrella of Christianity, obviously. However, traditionally, Christianity has been considered to be a religion that is both monotheistic and Trinitarian. Mormons are neither those things. Some of my Mormon friends here in AZ consider themselves Christian anyway, but most other Christians would consider monotheism and trinitarianism as central and non-negotiable. That does not mean they hate Mormons, of course.

 

 

 

As a Christian who is monotheistic but not Trinitarian, the very word Christianity defines to me a person who considers Christ to be their Savior, and who strives to imitate him to the best of their abilities as the perfect example of faith. Christian = based on Christ That seems pretty simple to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS church falls under the broad umbrella of Christianity, obviously. However, traditionally, Christianity has been considered to be a religion that is both monotheistic and Trinitarian. Mormons are neither those things. Some of my Mormon friends here in AZ consider themselves Christian anyway, but most other Christians would consider monotheism and trinitarianism as central and non-negotiable. That does not mean they hate Mormons, of course.

 

I can promise you that all of your Mormon friends consider themselves Christian. :001_smile: The way LDS people look at it, "Christian" means "follower of Christ the Savior." We can argue over other things, but that doesn't put us out of the Christian tent. And since no-one owns the word Christian, it's hard for me to believe that someone else gets to decide whether or not I qualify. :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: Crimson Wife, I'd love to discuss the Nicene Creed with you, but I have to be at church in 45 minutes and I'm only sitting at the computer in order to print out some church stuff...perhaps later today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts? . . . The company has a right to express its own views on its own website. The company has a right to be accurate with its viewpoints as well as a right to be wrong. The company has a right to choose its target market, as well as a right to be shunned by other market segments.

 

I did not realize that they were (or were becoming) as stiff-necked as BJUP and ABeka. I already have rejected their middle school and high school science texts as poor quality science texts, so neither have bought nor used one in a long time. The elementary school books did arouse a strong interest in science in my youngest child, for which I am happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Christian who is monotheistic but not Trinitarian, the very word Christianity defines to me a person who considers Christ to be their Savior, and who strives to imitate him to the best of their abilities as the perfect example of faith. Christian = based on Christ That seems pretty simple to me.

 

It could be called "simple" . . . until one stops to answer the question, "Who is Christ?" Then the multiple-choice answers crop up. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is kind of funny, because there aren't nearly as many young-earth LDS as there are old-earth LDS. I can't imagine they get much money from us anyway.

 

Here in Utah among the homeschooling crowd, YE is shockingly popular. Apologia is (perhaps was after this) the most popular science program as far as I'm aware. One local list is abuzz about this issue. People on it seem to have concluded (after reaching out to the authors of the books) that purchasing the books used or from non-Apologia vendors is ok.

 

I'm not taking a position on this one way or the other, but Apologia provided end notes to LDS documents which are direct quotations from Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and more. IOW, these are things which the Church has put in writing about non-LDS Christians..

 

I was born and raised in the LDS church. It has only been in the past year that I've become aware of hateful, anti-traditional Christianity Mormon teachings. I only became aware of them because I decided to really delve into the history of the church. Mormon doctrine is difficult to pin down because there isn't much in the way of an organized creed. ~180 years of teachings from various leaders (some of which directly contradict each other) means you can find all kinds of crazy things that were said and even believed by the members of the church. Some of the points of "doctrine" cited by Apologia were indeed taught and even believed by Mormons in the past. However, most modern Mormons will have no knowledge of these previous teachings since they are definitely not taught currently. Mormonism is a living, changing religion. It's different today than it was 10, 20, 50, or 100+ years ago.

 

The Nicene Creed states the basic tenets of Christianity. If someone can sign the Nicene Creed (ok to substitute "Christian church" for small-c "catholic church") as a Statement of Faith, then he/she is a Christian.

 

If a person can sign the Nicene Creed as a Statement of Faith, then s/he is a mainstream Christian. The Nicene Creed is not in the Bible. I use the teachings of Jesus to define whether or not I am His follower and can bear His name as a Christian. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not taking a position on this one way or the other, but Apologia provided end notes to LDS documents which are direct quotations from Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and more. IOW, these are things which the Church has put in writing about non-LDS Christians..

 

 

Out of curiosity, do you think Apologia is anti-Catholic as well? I am guessing that they probably are anti-catholic and it mystifies me why Seton would use Apologia for its science course. OTOH Kolbe Academy uses secular science materials which I like. I appreciate your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nicene Creed states the basic tenets of Christianity. If someone can sign the Nicene Creed (ok to substitute "Christian church" for small-c "catholic church") as a Statement of Faith, then he/she is a Christian.

 

 

There are Christians that do not agree with the Nicene Creed. There were Christians that did not agree with it when the Nicene Creed was established. The purpose of the Nicene Creed was to establish Orthodoxy and weed some out such as the followers of Arius, the Gnostics and other annoying Christians not toeing the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, do you think Apologia is anti-Catholic as well? I am guessing that they probably are anti-catholic and it mystifies me why Seton would use Apologia for its science course. OTOH Kolbe Academy uses secular science materials which I like. I appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

 

Apologia is, to coin a disposable word, "anti- nonProtestant".

 

I suspect that Seton turns a blind eye to Apologia's defects because it is an easy program (compared with others), and is designed for self-instruction (letting parents off the hook to a great extent). Similar to homeschool programs that promote Teaching Textbooks for math. The math is weak, but the program shines for self-instruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not taking a position on this one way or the other, but Apologia provided end notes to LDS documents which are direct quotations from Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and more. IOW, these are things which the Church has put in writing about non-LDS Christians..

 

 

True, and I read the whole thing, but I can't think of anyone from any religion who wants to be held accountable for everything their founders scribbled down several centuries ago. People evolve and beliefs change. Also, the key people in the early formation of ANY denomination are likely to disagree on something. If you require people to truly believe in every last word of doctrine that their denomination professes is The Truth, EVERY denomination of EVERY religion stands to lose, I don't know, 90% of its members.

 

The LDS church falls under the broad umbrella of Christianity, obviously. However, traditionally, Christianity has been considered to be a religion that is both monotheistic and Trinitarian. Mormons are neither those things. Some of my Mormon friends here in AZ consider themselves Christian anyway, but most other Christians would consider monotheism and trinitarianism as central and non-negotiable. That does not mean they hate Mormons, of course.

 

 

I think "hatred and bigotry" get overused for effect. I read the article, and disagreed with it, but it didn't sound 'hateful' to me. I think the author did some research, came to a conclusion based on that research, and presented his honest opinion. My opinion that the author is just plain wrong and way off base doesn't mean I can honestly call him a bigot. I don't think having an opinion and defending it equals treating someone with hatred and intolerance. Being part of ANY religion means believing things someone else considers wacko. You either defend your beliefs, or become so neutral that you don't really have a religion at all and cross over into humanitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Biologos?

 

 

I'm curious too. BioLogos

 

From the website: "BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that Ă¢â‚¬Å“all things hold together in Christ.Ă¢â‚¬ [Col 1:17]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this Dr. Wile's blog or the curriculum website's blog? I am on my way out to the flying field with the rocket team so I don't have time to check. However, just wanted to say that it should be noted that the original author, Dr. Jay Wile, is no longer associated with the curriculum. He sold it to another publishing group who then decided not to keep him around for editing and what not since he wasn't "Christian enough" for them. The new publisher is much more fundamentalist evangelical in ideal.

 

From the perspective of the curriculum itself, I have the older editions plus the newer chemistry - put out just before he sold the curriculum so it was not edited by the new owners - and it does not contain any anti-Mormon rants that I can find. It's not how he operates.

 

I'll check it out if I can tonight after their fundraiser is over.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this Dr. Wile's blog or the curriculum website's blog? I am on my way out to the flying field with the rocket team so I don't have time to check. However, just wanted to say that it should be noted that the original author, Dr. Jay Wile, is no longer associated with the curriculum. He sold it to another publishing group who then decided not to keep him around for editing and what not since he wasn't "Christian enough" for them. The new publisher is much more fundamentalist evangelical in ideal.

 

From the perspective of the curriculum itself, I have the older editions plus the newer chemistry - put out just before he sold the curriculum so it was not edited by the new owners - and it does not contain any anti-Mormon rants that I can find. It's not how he operates.

 

I'll check it out if I can tonight after their fundraiser is over.

 

Faith

 

 

Dr. Wile and the author of the younger books responded to inquiries stating that they disagree with the anti-Mormon stance of Apologia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I just wish that curriculum publishers didn't feel the need to behave in this way. Why do they feel it's their responsibility to pass judgment on how "Christian" their customers are? How is this good PR? First, the giant kerfuffle last year with the Answers in Genesis crowd (or whoever they were, my apologies if I've gotten their name wrong), then the whole bit with conference organizers blackballing curriculum sellers from their conventions (CHEC and the whole "Sonlight isn't Christian enough" thing), and now this. Honestly, who cares?

 

Aren't we a marginal enough community simply by being homeschoolers? In most places, that's enough to get the "weirdo" label slapped on your forehead...why are we trying to cause further division within our own ranks?

 

I mean, I understand if you're debating the merits of a religion curriculum, but what on earth does religion have to do with teaching grammar, writing, zoology or math? If I were a curriculum seller, I could care less what church my customers belonged to. I would just be happy they were buying my stuff!

 

And as far as other faiths go, I can't imagine spending my time trying to figure out if I thought they were "Christian enough" or nice enough, or generous enough or reverent enough. I have my own life and my own family to worry about. That doesn't leave me time to judge others or their belief system.

 

And I mean this in the nicest way possible....I don't care what anyone else believes. Honestly. If you are a nice, decent, kind, person and we enjoy talking together and have a lot in common then you can worship a purple head of cabbage for all I care. I will still be your friend. Because your faith and your religion are not a criteria of mine for choosing my friends.

 

I'm sad to see that it IS the criteria by which some curriculum suppliers choose their customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "hatred and bigotry" get overused for effect. I read the article, and disagreed with it, but it didn't sound 'hateful' to me. I think the author did some research, came to a conclusion based on that research, and presented his honest opinion. My opinion that the author is just plain wrong and way off base doesn't mean I can honestly call him a bigot. I don't think having an opinion and defending it equals treating someone with hatred and intolerance. Being part of ANY religion means believing things someone else considers wacko. You either defend your beliefs, or become so neutral that you don't really have a religion at all and cross over into humanitarianism.

 

 

I agree that it doesn't have to do with intolerance. Everyone has the right to disagree with what someone says, it doesn't make them a bigot. The definition of bigot is being intolerant of another's beliefs. I strongly dislike the word "bigot" because all it takes is someone saying, "I don't agree with you" to be named a bigot, and this includes anything. Whether a very controversial topic, or something minimal. Disagreeing doesn't = bigot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nicene Creed states the basic tenets of Christianity. If someone can sign the Nicene Creed (ok to substitute "Christian church" for small-c "catholic church") as a Statement of Faith, then he/she is a Christian.

 

 

Says who?

 

I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm just wondering by whose authority is this idea considered the acceptable identification of Christian?

 

As far as I can see, there are three sources of who/what Christ/Christian is: the bible; history of the community of believers; personal experience.

 

If the bible is to be interpreted "correctly," who determines which interpretation does this? Why is the Mormon literal interpretation not acceptable, but the Baptist literal interpretation is? Who made this rule and under what authority?

 

If the history of the community of believers is to be the staple for "real Christianity," why was Luther's movement embraced 1200 years after the Christian faith really took off. but the Mormon movement not allowed only 300 years later?

 

If personal experience is the litmus for the actual revelation of God, why is the Mormon personal experience discredited?

 

 

And finally, but most importantly, what does ANY of this have to do with biology, chemistry, physics, or the mechanics of nature in the first place? Does this not raise a red flag for Christians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their blog post left me with a bad taste in my mouth and serious misgivings about using one of their products that I had been planning to use in September.....

But my question is why, if this is all abuzz in homeschooling circles, are there only 28 comments on this blog post? Do people not care to share their opinions with Apologia or are the comments being deleted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their blog post left me with a bad taste in my mouth and serious misgivings about using one of their products that I had been planning to use in September.....

But my question is why, if this is all abuzz in homeschooling circles, are there only 28 comments on this blog post? Do people not care to share their opinions with Apologia or are the comments being deleted?

 

are you referring to comments on apolgias website? how many people actually puruse their blogs? how many are of the same view as them, and how many are different?

of thoes 28 posts - how many agree with them? how many are neutral? how many disagree?

 

that is information that will give you a better idea of if the comments are a true representation of the comments being posted - or if they're being moderated to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this Dr. Wile's blog or the curriculum website's blog? I am on my way out to the flying field with the rocket team so I don't have time to check. However, just wanted to say that it should be noted that the original author, Dr. Jay Wile, is no longer associated with the curriculum. He sold it to another publishing group who then decided not to keep him around for editing and what not since he wasn't "Christian enough" for them. The new publisher is much more fundamentalist evangelical in ideal.

 

From the perspective of the curriculum itself, I have the older editions plus the newer chemistry - put out just before he sold the curriculum so it was not edited by the new owners - and it does not contain any anti-Mormon rants that I can find. It's not how he operates.

 

I'll check it out if I can tonight after their fundraiser is over.

 

Faith

 

 

I just searched on the man's name. His blog presents it as HE left THEM.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2206

 

Same difference. I have no interest in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait until Biologos is out.

From what I've seen of BioLogos, I'm inclined to doubt that their curriculum would be useful to Catholics. They're starting with different basic assumptions (e.g., sola scriptura), and some of the opinions on their site are in direct conflict with Church teaching. And then there's the title of their sample materials: "Test of Faith." For me, just keeping on going with the efforts of daily life is a test of faith. Science, not so much.

 

As a somewhat-classical homeschooler, I think our students would be much better served by more general studies of the history and philosophy of science, what it is and is not, and how it's been used and abused through the ages. It seems completely novel and off-the-wall to introduce our middle school and high school students to a bunch of theological speculation in order to "save Christianity," as BL claims to be doing. Since when was that the task of education anyway? We're supposed to be forming human beings, not briefing our troops in preparation for some (supposed) current battle or other.

 

Getting back to the OP... if Apologia has been finding it necessary to sprinkle critiques of Mormonism through their science materials, then that is strange in a whole other way. It reminds me of that famous line from George S. Kaufman: "Madam, don't you have any unexpressed thoughts?" ;)

 

Both Apologia and BioLogos seem to share an assumption that I've noticed in many other places -- that it's somehow vitally important for all of us to have opinions on just about every issue (especially on topics relating to politics, religion, and education), and to be ready to jump in and express them whenever the opportunity comes up. At the risk of tipping some sacred cow, I don't agree with this. It seems kind of ridiculous. I mean, does anyone really care what Mrs. Murphy down the street thinks about Mormonism, or how Joe Bloggs the blogger interprets the Book of Genesis? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? My opinion is that our society is suffering from a plethora of opinions, and it's making it hard to find common ground within our own religious or interest groups, let alone with others.

 

I think this might be somewhat of an American phenomenon, and I blame John Dewey. For no particular reason except that he seems a handy scapegoat. And I think I have to express an opinion on this question, or I might get deported. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't actually read the Apologia blog, but I would like to address the issue of calling Mormons Christians. The word Christian previously had a specific meaning that has now been blurred. This happened in England a long time ago, so that "Christian" basically meant "good and decent".

 

Many "orthodox" Christians (meaning those holding to the Nicene Creed, not referring to Eastern Orthodox only) recognize a significant difference in belief between themselves and Mormons. Mormons also recognize this difference. They don't feel a conflict when using the term Christian, but this can cause confusion if you begin to have so many different meanings to the word.

 

I'm sure it would cause problems if a new group arose that called itself Mormon, yet changed some core portions of the original Mormons belief (meaning that held by current members of Latter Day Saints - I do know that Mormonism can change). The problem would be one of identification. The word Mormon would lose its original meaning.

 

I think this is what has happened with the term Christian. The meaning of the term has changed for mainstream America.

 

There have been divisions in the church - but although Luther broke away from the practices of the Catholic church at that time, he still held most of the same doctrines to be true (and certainly the Nicene Creed).

 

It is too bad that the article was apparently so unkind and insensitive. But I have seen this discussion before, and I think the problem comes with the change of the definition. As a Christian in the more traditional sense, this is hard for me.

 

I will also mention that I am bothered when people come to my door trying to change my faith, yet start the conversation by affirming that they "are Christians, too." This bothers me because they know there are major differences between us, or they wouldn't be about to try to change my mind. This is one place where I don't like the use of the word Christian to be used by them. It feels misleading to me.

 

If it's okay to have different faiths, it should be okay to have names that distinguish them. I find it hard to even try to make my point here without risking saying something inflammatory. If it's okay to have different views, it should be okay to say what they are and to admit the difficulty of being called by the same name when there are different beliefs between the two groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this might be somewhat of an American phenomenon, and I blame John Dewey. For no particular reason except that he seems a handy scapegoat. And I think I have to express an opinion on this question, or I might get deported. :D

 

I just laughed so hard!!!! Thank you!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I for one am heartily sick of this s$&-!

 

I tire of curriculum vendors having statements of faith or taking political positions. It's a$$inine. Really. Because then when I want to test my kids and my friends tests with a group but they get their tests from Bju...well, I know what they've said about Catholics. So I can't in good conscience give them my money. And it becomes a Big Thing. When all I want is to get my kids tested! THEY are the ones dragging sectarian political nonsense into everything, and I'm very tired of it. All it does is divide we few home schoolers even more, and they shoot themselves in the foot. It's like we are our own worst enemy.

 

Buh-bye Apologia. Take your misinformation and sell it somewhere else...only the real problem is, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't actually read the Apologia blog, but I would like to address the issue of calling Mormons Christians. The word Christian previously had a specific meaning that has now been blurred. This happened in England a long time ago, so that "Christian" basically meant "good and decent".

 

Many "orthodox" Christians (meaning those holding to the Nicene Creed, not referring to Eastern Orthodox only) recognize a significant difference in belief between themselves and Mormons. Mormons also recognize this difference. They don't feel a conflict when using the term Christian, but this can cause confusion if you begin to have so many different meanings to the word.

 

I'm sure it would cause problems if a new group arose that called itself Mormon, yet changed some core portions of the original Mormons belief (meaning that held by current members of Latter Day Saints - I do know that Mormonism can change). The problem would be one of identification. The word Mormon would lose its original meaning.

 

I think this is what has happened with the term Christian. The meaning of the term has changed for mainstream America.

 

There have been divisions in the church - but although Luther broke away from the practices of the Catholic church at that time, he still held most of the same doctrines to be true (and certainly the Nicene Creed).

 

It is too bad that the article was apparently so unkind and insensitive. But I have seen this discussion before, and I think the problem comes with the change of the definition. As a Christian in the more traditional sense, this is hard for me.

 

I will also mention that I am bothered when people come to my door trying to change my faith, yet start the conversation by affirming that they "are Christians, too." This bothers me because they know there are major differences between us, or they wouldn't be about to try to change my mind. This is one place where I don't like the use of the word Christian to be used by them. It feels misleading to me.

 

If it's okay to have different faiths, it should be okay to have names that distinguish them. I find it hard to even try to make my point here without risking saying something inflammatory. If it's okay to have different views, it should be okay to say what they are and to admit the difficulty of being called by the same name when there are different beliefs between the two groups.

 

 

I'm LDS and have no problem with what you just said. If you define a Christian as "one who believes the Nicene Creed," I gladly admit I do not fit your definition. I personally like Webster's definition: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." As I do profess belief in His teachings, I consider myself a Christain. We can agree to disagree here.

 

The problem with Apologia's blog was it was full of lies and half truths. It looked like it was copied and pasted from anti-LDS literature, rather than a true analysis of what we believe.

 

And it DOES get confusing when some FLDS people call themselves "Mormon". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind when various Mormon groups claim the term Mormon. There were several people/groups with legitimate claims to carry on Joseph Smith's legacy. Later, more groups split off the Brigham Young (today's LDS) branch. Members of each group think their group is the right kind of Mormon with the true authority.

 

LDS specifically refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and wouldn't accurately be used for FLDS, RLDS, AUB, Community of Christ, or any other Mormon group.

 

A couple of years ago I would have thought the list of Mormon doctrine in the Apologia post was full of anti-Mormon lies. Now I understand that they are all things that were once taught. Because I wasn't taught them in the modern LDS church, I believed them to be fictitious. Studying more in depth and less polished (LDS) church history has shown me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't actually read the Apologia blog, but I would like to address the issue of calling Mormons Christians. The word Christian previously had a specific meaning that has now been blurred. This happened in England a long time ago, so that "Christian" basically meant "good and decent".

 

Many "orthodox" Christians (meaning those holding to the Nicene Creed, not referring to Eastern Orthodox only) recognize a significant difference in belief between themselves and Mormons. Mormons also recognize this difference. They don't feel a conflict when using the term Christian, but this can cause confusion if you begin to have so many different meanings to the word.

 

I'm sure it would cause problems if a new group arose that called itself Mormon, yet changed some core portions of the original Mormons belief (meaning that held by current members of Latter Day Saints - I do know that Mormonism can change). The problem would be one of identification. The word Mormon would lose its original meaning.

 

I think this is what has happened with the term Christian. The meaning of the term has changed for mainstream America.

 

There have been divisions in the church - but although Luther broke away from the practices of the Catholic church at that time, he still held most of the same doctrines to be true (and certainly the Nicene Creed).

 

It is too bad that the article was apparently so unkind and insensitive. But I have seen this discussion before, and I think the problem comes with the change of the definition. As a Christian in the more traditional sense, this is hard for me.

 

I will also mention that I am bothered when people come to my door trying to change my faith, yet start the conversation by affirming that they "are Christians, too." This bothers me because they know there are major differences between us, or they wouldn't be about to try to change my mind. This is one place where I don't like the use of the word Christian to be used by them. It feels misleading to me.

 

If it's okay to have different faiths, it should be okay to have names that distinguish them. I find it hard to even try to make my point here without risking saying something inflammatory. If it's okay to have different views, it should be okay to say what they are and to admit the difficulty of being called by the same name when there are different beliefs between the two groups.

 

 

 

You present this as if it is fact. It is not fact. It is clearly heartfelt belief on your part, and it's clear you believe it to your core. That's fine - but the reality is that the term "Christian" and its history aren't so clear cut or delineated.

 

Further, it's poor business to pontificate in the way that Apologia did/does. Clearly they are self-select and don't wish to attract business other than those who share their viewpoint.

 

I personally wish more people would stop buying simply on the basis of courtesy, respect, tolerance, inclusiveness, and kindness. But I suppose they aren't Christian virtues unless they are within scripted, rigid, imposed Christian doctrine and rhetoric.

 

Me? No loss because I no longer homeschool. I never used their stuff because the science is substandard, anyway.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot fathom how any curricular material can benefit from a publisher's decision to define "Christian" for the world. What could the motives of Apologia be? Would they not want their curriculum to be used by as many as possible so their brand of Christianity is brought to everyone? I ask the same question of BJU and ABeka. What possible good can this do? Cannot the students and their parents come to their own decisions about religion, properly influenced (as seen by these publishers) from exposure to the content of the curriculum itself? How responsible is it to define someone else's belief system, and then make declarations about it?

 

We are LDS and many years ago purchased some very good English materials from ABeka and then had many discussion as to why they would include jabs at our religion as grammar examples!

 

That was the first and last purchase from publisher who might blindside me with invective and attempts to tell me what I believe and how mistaken (or worse) I am. Now, Apologia has gone a step further and decided that they feel comfortable with disenfranchising LDS families while asking them to continue to purchase their materials. Enough is enough.

 

I think it would be good advice for this thread to refrain from positing our own definitions of who gets to be called "Christian," lest we fall into the same trap. Let's respect each others' beliefs and respect the believers in that they know of their own doctrine.

 

Happy Sunday Night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 what do you call people who followed Christ before that date?

 

 

Christians. It wasn't "Here's something new: The Nicene Creed. This is what you all need to believe now if want to call yourself Christian." It was "Uh-oh, heresies are popping up, we better put into written words what it is that we as a church already believe." So the Creed is the written version of what the church had already been living and believing from the beginning. And yes, I understand that there were some in the church that didn't agree with what the Nicene creed says; I'm just addressing the idea that the Nicene creed didn't exist before it was written down. It did -- through Holy Tradition (just like the Bible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't "Here's something new: The Nicene Creed. This is what you all need to believe how if want to call yourself part of the Christian church." It was "Uh-oh, heresies are popping up, we better talk about and put into words what it is that we as a church believe." So the Creed is the written version of what the church had already been living and believing from the beginning (and yes, I understand that there were some in the church that didn't agree with what the Nicene creed says). I'm just addressing the idea that the Nicene creed didn't exist before it was written down. It did -- through Holy Tradition (just like the Bible).

 

 

EXACTLY!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their blog post left me with a bad taste in my mouth and serious misgivings about using one of their products that I had been planning to use in September.....

But my question is why, if this is all abuzz in homeschooling circles, are there only 28 comments on this blog post? Do people not care to share their opinions with Apologia or are the comments being deleted?

 

 

It's the latter. I commented yesterday and today the comment is gone. There are several comments on there at this moment stating that comments are getting deleted. For some reason comments getting deleted seems even worse to me. They are not interested in a real dialog (even thught they spoke to a real live Mormon on the phone once), but instead want their distorted view to be definitive (but still buy from us!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's the latter. I commented yesterday and today the comment is gone. There are several comments on there at this moment stating that comments are getting deleted. For some reason comments getting deleted seems even worse to me. They are not interested in a real dialog (even thught they spoke to a real live Mormon on the phone once), but instead want their distorted view to be definitive (but still buy from us!).

 

And that makes it even worse on their part....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's the latter. I commented yesterday and today the comment is gone. There are several comments on there at this moment stating that comments are getting deleted. For some reason comments getting deleted seems even worse to me. They are not interested in a real dialog (even thught they spoke to a real live Mormon on the phone once), but instead want their distorted view to be definitive (but still buy from us!).

 

 

 

Ugh.... just UGH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fine with all of it except that baptism forgives our sins.

 

Dawn

 

Christians. It wasn't "Here's something new: The Nicene Creed. This is what you all need to believe now if want to call yourself Christian." It was "Uh-oh, heresies are popping up, we better put into written words what it is that we as a church already believe." So the Creed is the written version of what the church had already been living and believing from the beginning. And yes, I understand that there were some in the church that didn't agree with what the Nicene creed says; I'm just addressing the idea that the Nicene creed didn't exist before it was written down. It did -- through Holy Tradition (just like the Bible).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind when various Mormon groups claim the term Mormon. There were several people/groups with legitimate claims to carry on Joseph Smith's legacy. Later, more groups split off the Brigham Young (today's LDS) branch. Members of each group think their group is the right kind of Mormon with the true authority.

 

LDS specifically refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and wouldn't accurately be used for FLDS, RLDS, AUB, Community of Christ, or any other Mormon group.

 

A couple of years ago I would have thought the list of Mormon doctrine in the Apologia post was full of anti-Mormon lies. Now I understand that they are all things that were once taught. Because I wasn't taught them in the modern LDS church, I believed them to be fictitious. Studying more in depth and less polished (LDS) church history has shown me otherwise.

 

I blame Sister Wives. At least for me, the show was a pop culture introduction into a whole area of history that I had previously not known. Who has 'legitimate' claim to a title can get tricky. And the zeitgeist today is to affirm that everyone can define himself because we prioritize the individual over the group.

 

I am reminded of a quote I heard by a contemporary historian, "History is nobody's friend". The unvarnished history of any group (even my own) is not as clear, noble and pristine as we like to believe it is. I try to remember that when reading historical claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I have no idea which claims Apologia makes in that blog post are anywhere near accurate, but I can tell you point blank that some of them would disqualify Catholics from being considered Christians by them. Crap. So much for that apologia order I had in the cart. Crap. Mother of Mercy, please send me science curriculum for high school that I can actually use without shame!

 

Ugh. I'd love science if I didn't have to sweat hard for high school science materials. By the time we get to using it, I'm already sick of the subject. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...