Jump to content

Menu

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


Samiam
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just saw on Apologia's blog that there will be a follow-up post Wednesday evening. I wonder what it will say.

 

Can't wait to see this one! How badly can they shoot their other foot?

 

Gee, I can hardly wait. :p

 

I know ,really!

 

Why Catholics, Orthodox, and JW's Aren't Christians

 

Why People Who Are Reformed Aren't Christians

 

Why People Who Are Arminian Aren't Christians

 

Why People With Blonde Hair Aren't Christians

 

Wait, We've Realized WE Aren't Christians.

 

Nevermind...We'll Let Mormons Be Christians After All

 

:D

 

{all said completely in jest}

 

I am betting on "We're the Only True Christians, but we'll allow you your misconceptions. Buy my Books".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The difference is that Christians do not call themselves Jewish anymore. They didn't try to change the definition of what Jewish is, they became a new religion based on Jesus Christ. Only the very first Christians self identified themselves with the moniker "Jewish". As time went on it was completely dropped.

 

The idea I'm taking away from this is that 1) if Christians called themselves Jewish, then Mormons would be called Christian without issue; and 2) because Jews don't accept the Christian idea of being a precursor to Christianity but Christians accept this anyway, by what authority do Christians get to say Mormons can't claim the NT is a precursor to Mormon theology?

 

#2 does not apply to Mormonism. Their Book of Mormon was not written by a man inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so but was GIVEN TO Joseph Smith, already written, by Angels or God. It was not inspired, but directly given to. That's a big difference to me.

 

Moroni is understood to have written the tablets, and then centuries later, as the Angel Moroni, he translated them for Smith. Mormons, am I remembering this right? Was Moroni understood to have been divinely inspired to write this scripture?

 

I'm trying to step very carefully here.

 

Me too.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it all comes down to personal conviction, truthfully.

 

 

You're so much more concise than I. :o

 

ETA -- I wanted to add that for me it's not so much personal conviction as in "What have I figured out?" but personal conviction as to where God's church is. I believe the original early church has never fallen away and still exists as He said it would. I realize that the LDS faith teaches that there was a falling away (apostasy) and that the church was restored as the LDS church

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea I'm taking away from this is that 1) if Christians called themselves Jewish, then Mormons would be called Christian without issue; and 2) because Jews don't accept the Christian idea of being a precursor to Christianity but Christians accept this anyway, by what authority do Christians get to say Mormons can't claim the NT is a precursor to Mormon theology?

 

<again, no emotions in this at all. We're having a very civil, interesting discussion and I'm answering as such. :)>

 

First and foremost, you seem to be talking with me as if I am defending the "Mormons are not Christian" line of thinking, and I am not weighing in one way or the other. I believe I have been perfectly clear with that and will continue to be.

 

You asked a specific question why it is different, and I gave you my best answer as to why I think it can be seen as different.

 

I do not claim authority that I can speak for ANYONE's faith walk and relationship (or non relationship) with God.

 

I don't believe #1 is as simple as that and I don't think that anything that anyone's saying can be distilled to simply that.

 

I can't speak for Apologia and why they think they can make such judgment calls. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<again, no emotions in this at all. We're having a very civil, interesting discussion and I'm answering as such. :)>

 

For this, I am grateful.

 

:)

 

First and foremost, you seem to be talking with me as if I am defending the "Mormons are not Christian" line of thinking, and I am not weighing in one way or the other. I believe I have been perfectly clear with that and will continue to be.

 

You asked a specific question why it is different, and I gave you my best answer as to why I think it can be seen as different.

 

I do not claim authority that I can speak for ANYONE's faith walk and relationship (or non relationship) with God.

 

I don't believe #1 is as simple as that and I don't think that anything that anyone's saying can be distilled to simply that.

 

I can't speak for Apologia and why they think they can make such judgment calls. :)

 

I recognize you're not speaking for Apologia, or defending their point of view. In the course of this thread, I have forgotten that you were not approaching this from a position of defending orthodox Christianity against including Mormon theology. I'm glad you reminded me, and I do appreciate your comments nevertheless. They're helpful for me to sort this out.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Moroni is understood to have written the tablets, and then centuries later, as the Angel Moroni, he translated them for Smith. Mormons, am I remembering this right? Was Moroni understood to have been divinely inspired to write this scripture?

 

Close! LDS belief is that:

 

Prophets through hundreds of years of history wrote records of their people. Some of these were history, some divinely inspired scripture.

 

Mormon, and later his son Moroni, abridged these piles of records into a shorter record, being inspired as to what to include and/or write. Both men were prophets. That's why it's called The Book of Mormon--Mormon is the guy who put it all together. His son eventually buried the record.

 

In the 1820s, Moroni, now an angel, showed Joseph Smith where to find his book. Smith translated the book through divine means and then gave the original back. Moroni acted as a teacher to Smith, but did not do the translating.

 

Is that fairly clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that fairly clear?

 

Yes, thank you!

 

Would it be fair to say the Book of Mormon is "divinely inspired," similarly to how the Jewish scriptures and Christian bible is considered?

 

And now, just because I'm nosy curious, what is the origin and standing of the other books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you!

 

Would it be fair to say the Book of Mormon is "divinely inspired," similarly to how the Jewish scriptures and Christian bible is considered?

 

And now, just because I'm nosy curious, what is the origin and standing of the other books?

 

Yes, we do believe the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. Here are several articles and explanations as to its origin and content: http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon it's easier for me to post a link than to write it all out, but I know all of the LDS ladies here are willing to answer any questions you might have.

 

If you are speaking of the other books within the Book of Mormon, we believe they are a continuing record of the people who lived anciently on the American continent. The records were passed down and then abridged by Mormon into one record. The website will explain this much better than I can at the moment, because it's past my bedtime. LOL

 

Feel free to ask any other questions if you have them. We want people to get correct answers as to what we believe and not the half truths and/or outright lies that I've seen elsewhere. So please, don't hesitate to ask. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that Christians do not call themselves Jewish anymore. They didn't try to change the definition of what Jewish is, they became a new religion based on Jesus Christ. Only the very first Christians self identified themselves with the moniker "Jewish". As time went on it was completely dropped.

 

#2 does not apply to Mormonism. Their Book of Mormon was not written by a man inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so but was GIVEN TO Joseph Smith, already written, by Angels or God. It was not inspired, but directly given to. That's a big difference to me.

 

I'm trying to step very carefully here.

 

 

No, that is incorrect. The Book of Mormon was absolutely written by a man *inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so* and was NOT written by angels or God. That's actually a new one for me. Never heard that misconception before. Just like in the Bible, there were prophets who were inspired to write things. Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Mormon Moroni, etc. Men. Just like with the Bible, it was written in a language other than English. By men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Joseph Smith translated those men's writings to English. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, that is incorrect. The Book of Mormon was absolutely written by a man *inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so* and was NOT written by angels or God. That's actually a new one for me. Never heard that misconception before. Just like in the Bible, there were prophets who were inspired to write things. Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Mormon Moroni, etc. Men. Just like with the Bible, it was written in a language other than English. By men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Joseph Smith translated those men's writings to English. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

 

Thank you telling me this. I was told what i postex nearly verbatim by a very faithful Mormon so I took her word on it. I stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you telling me this. I was told what i postex nearly verbatim by a very faithful Mormon so I took her word on it. I stand corrected.

 

I'm guessing something was lost in the translation or she got ahead of herself and didn't communicate properly. The golden plates were given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni and Joseph Smith translated them. That was just how Joseh Smith got possession of them, though. They had been written by the prophets centuries before. So you had part of the story :)

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.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get further into the differences could cause more hard feelings here. Let's just say that the golden tablets, the supposed history they present, and the supposed translation by Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith's personal history are all problematic (supposed, because some believe and some do not). Aside from faith, Mormonism has absolutely no backing in archeology, linguistics, etc. I find Judaism and Christianity to not have the same problems in this respect. Personal view, that the LDS are already aware others have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And now, just because I'm nosy curious, what is the origin and standing of the other books?

 

Well, you know where the Bible came from. :) The Bible is of course very important to us.

 

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of revelations given to Joseph Smith, plus a couple of others given to later prophets of the LDS Church. If we get new scripture, it goes in that book. Mormons believe that we need new revelation from time to time to keep us on the right track--that the heavens are not closed and Heavenly Father will guide us today as well as in the old days.

 

The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of this and that. Ancient scripture received or translated by Joseph Smith, his own account of what happened to him, and the Articles of Faith (which is as close as we get to having a creed; it's a summary of LDS beliefs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, it's been discussions like this (that have been entirely friendly in this case, no?) that have helped me understand the point of view of others whose beliefs are different from mine. And, perhaps selfishly but perhaps for other reasons, too, I've appreciated that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get further into the differences could cause more hard feelings here. Let's just say that the golden tablets, the supposed history they present, and the supposed translation by Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith's personal history are all problematic (supposed, because some believe and some do not). Aside from faith, Mormonism has absolutely no backing in archeology, linguistics, etc. I find Judaism and Christianity to not have the same problems in this respect. Personal view, that the LDS are already aware others have.

 

If you were to become aware of the legitimacy problems with the orthodox Christian faith, would that influence your opinion? If, for example, you were to learn of the archaeological and historical discrepancies between Christian claims and the facts, would you consider the Mormon claim in a new light, or would you be inspired by your faith to maintain your faith regardless of what information may not support it?

 

You know, that's a terribly personal question, and I want to retract it, but at the same time, I don't because I'd be very interested in an opinion (yours or someone else's). So please understand I don't mean to put *you* on the spot, but if you or someone else would care to answer that genuinely, I know I would be interested (and I doubt I'm alone in this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you know where the Bible came from. :) The Bible is of course very important to us.

 

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of revelations given to Joseph Smith, plus a couple of others given to later prophets of the LDS Church. If we get new scripture, it goes in that book. Mormons believe that we need new revelation from time to time to keep us on the right track--that the heavens are not closed and Heavenly Father will guide us today as well as in the old days.

 

The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of this and that. Ancient scripture received or translated by Joseph Smith, his own account of what happened to him, and the Articles of Faith (which is as close as we get to having a creed; it's a summary of LDS beliefs).

 

So in this respect, we might say Joseph Smith is similar to Paul the Apostle in that he didn't hang out with Jesus personally, but was divinely given many core revelations, wrote them down, and spread them throughout a land of those who were not aware of the "fullness of the faith." Would that be fair to say from a Mormon pov? A Christian pov?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this entire argument about who is or isn't true Christian exasperating. Just think of the amount of wasted energy.

 

It certainly can be exasperating. I don't think of it as wasted energy, though. On the contrary, considering how much energy is spent in spreading, coercing, manipulating, and even violently attacking others in hopes of honoring one's faith, I think it's not wasted energy at all to become more informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get further into the differences could cause more hard feelings here. Let's just say that the golden tablets, the supposed history they present, and the supposed translation by Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith's personal history are all problematic (supposed, because some believe and some do not). Aside from faith, Mormonism has absolutely no backing in archeology, linguistics, etc. I find Judaism and Christianity to not have the same problems in this respect. Personal view, that the LDS are already aware others have.

 

 

These issues were factors in my disaffection with the LDS faith. I am aware of a growing number of Mormons who also have concerns. Some have adopted a non-literal view of The Book of Mormon and continue activity and faith in the religion. Joseph Smith's personal history is more difficult given the discrepancies between what is currently taught about him in official publications vs. historical records and testimony. I find him to be an interesting character to study.

 

A few weeks ago I spent an afternoon chatting with members of the Community of Christ, which is a Mormon branch that stayed in Illinois after Smith's death. Smith's son became the leader of that church. The way Mormonism evolved in that branch is markedly different than how it evolved in the Brighamite (mainstream LDS) branch. CoC is Trinitarian. CoC ordains women. CoC uses The Book of Mormon as scripture, but a literal testimony is not required. CoC never practiced polygamy. CoC did not continue the secret/sacred temple ceremonies. There are more differences as well. I find them fascinating.

 

At the same time, it's been discussions like this (that have been entirely friendly in this case, no?) that have helped me understand the point of view of others whose beliefs are different from mine. And, perhaps selfishly but perhaps for other reasons, too, I've appreciated that.

 

 

The Hive has been instrumental in my religious education. I enjoy civil discussions about religion. :)

 

If you were to become aware of the legitimacy problems with the orthodox Christian faith, would that influence your opinion? If, for example, you were to learn of the archaeological and historical discrepancies between Christian claims and the facts, would you consider the Mormon claim in a new light, or would you be inspired by your faith to maintain your faith regardless of what information may not support it?

You know, that's a terribly personal question, and I want to retract it, but at the same time, I don't because I'd be very interested in an opinion (yours or someone else's). So please understand I don't mean to put *you* on the spot, but if you or someone else would care to answer that genuinely, I know I would be interested (and I doubt I'm alone in this).

 

 

For many years I ignored any hints of information that would call my beliefs into question. The church's involvement in Prop 8 shattered my faith in the leaders. I disagreed with their treatment of LGBT issues and then I couldn't avoid seeing problems with the way the church treats women. That led me to investigate polygamy to see if I could come to any kind of faithful conclusion about that (no). Polygamy led to a general investigation into church history. I have been careful to research a variety of perspectives because I want the most accurate picture possible. This whole process has been incredibly painful. Losing my faith in my religion has been a refiner's fire. Now I'm sifting through the ashes to figure out what I believe and how to proceed.

 

I understand why someone would avoid close examination of anything that could cause them to doubt. The cost of doubt can be very high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in this respect, we might say Joseph Smith is similar to Paul the Apostle in that he didn't hang out with Jesus personally, but was divinely given many core revelations, wrote them down, and spread them throughout a land of those who were not aware of the "fullness of the faith." Would that be fair to say from a Mormon pov? A Christian pov?

 

Yes, exactly. We do not worship Joseph Smith as some anti-Mormon literature has claimed. We worship our Father in Heaven. We consider Joseph Smith to be a modern day prophet in the same vein as the prophets of old. We do not consider the heavens to be "closed". We believe that God loves and cares for his children today, and provides guidance and help for our lives through modern day revelation. We just had our semi-annual church conference, where our leaders (both men and women) address the church as a whole to provide that guidance and counsel. If anyone is interested in what we were told, here is the link. You can click on the conference banner that appears on the page and read any of the talks you choose. http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why someone would avoid close examination of anything that could cause them to doubt. The cost of doubt can be very high.

 

 

Yes, it can. It led me to leave the church I was raised and educated in, and convert to the LDS church. It was a difficult process, that took me over six years. Interesting how everyone's journey of faith leads them down such different paths. I hope you find the same peace at the end of yours as I did in mine. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in this respect, we might say Joseph Smith is similar to Paul the Apostle in that he didn't hang out with Jesus personally, but was divinely given many core revelations, wrote them down, and spread them throughout a land of those who were not aware of the "fullness of the faith." Would that be fair to say from a Mormon pov? A Christian pov?

 

 

Except that Paul the Apostle did hang out with Jesus' disciples, and met with them before he began any of his own teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you were to become aware of the legitimacy problems with the orthodox Christian faith, would that influence your opinion? If, for example, you were to learn of the archaeological and historical discrepancies between Christian claims and the facts, would you consider the Mormon claim in a new light, or would you be inspired by your faith to maintain your faith regardless of what information may not support it?

 

You know, that's a terribly personal question, and I want to retract it, but at the same time, I don't because I'd be very interested in an opinion (yours or someone else's). So please understand I don't mean to put *you* on the spot, but if you or someone else would care to answer that genuinely, I know I would be interested (and I doubt I'm alone in this).

I wasn't raised nor did I come to the Orthodox faith lightly. I already had a background on history and continued to study, asked questions, and read original writings. If there truly was a huge disconnect, and the evidence didn't hold up, then I would have to question my faith and where I'm at. I do not believe faith is entirely without logic. For the same reason, no I still would not look at Mormonism in any different light. I does not hold water for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea I'm taking away from this is that 1) if Christians called themselves Jewish, then Mormons would be called Christian without issue; and 2) because Jews don't accept the Christian idea of being a precursor to Christianity but Christians accept this anyway, by what authority do Christians get to say Mormons can't claim the NT is a precursor to Mormon theology?

 

 

 

Moroni is understood to have written the tablets, and then centuries later, as the Angel Moroni, he translated them for Smith. Mormons, am I remembering this right? Was Moroni understood to have been divinely inspired to write this scripture?

 

 

 

Me too.

 

:)

There are some Christians who consider themselves somewhat Jewish. Quasi-Jewish, maybe. We met a man who always wore a tzitzit and a kippah, he invited us over for Shabbat dinner. He was a Baptist. I'm married to a non-religious Jewish man, I think the guy had high hopes and we were a real let down. My Jewish extended family (varying degrees of religiosity) find this kind of thing offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some Christians who consider themselves somewhat Jewish. Quasi-Jewish, maybe. We met a man who always wore a tzitzit and a kippah, he invited us over for Shabbat dinner. He was a Baptist. I'm married to a non-religious Jewish man, I think the guy had high hopes and we were a real let down. My Jewish extended family (varying degrees of religiosity) find this kind of thing offensive.

 

Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. Christians impose themselves onto a Jewish identity, claiming their faith is the culmination of the Jewish, incompletely revealed faith. Even though this may be offensive to Jews (more likely, ignored or thought of as ridiculous), Christians maintain this identity.

 

Mormons impose themselves onto a Christian identity, claiming their faith is the culmination of the New Testament, incompletely revealed faith. Even though this may be offensive to Christians (like those running Apologia), Mormons maintain this identity.

 

So, for those Christians who say it's okay for Christians to do, but not for Mormons, I wonder, Why?

 

 

(And that's not even touching Islam! :laugh:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. Christians impose themselves onto a Jewish identity, claiming their faith is the culmination of the Jewish, incompletely revealed faith. Even though this may be offensive to Jews (more likely, ignored or thought of as ridiculous), Christians maintain this identity.

 

 

I think that some groups in (relatively) recent years have done this. Jews-for-Jesus and Messianic Christians pop to mind. But historically, from the very early days, Christianity has been a different faith than Judaism (they agree and we agree). Yes, Christians believe that Judaism provided the roots, if you will, of our faith, and many of our practices stem from what the disciples -- as Jewish men - had practiced in the temple, but we are not Jewish, we are not to try to follow Jewish law or co-opt their feasts, we don't call ourselves Jewish Christians (some do, but we ought not), etc. We have our own feasts, our own leadership, our own practices, our own words/names, all focused on the incarnation of the messiah, Jesus Christ.

 

Our family looked into the Messianic movement for a short time (because we longed for a more historical faith), but then we realized we're not Jewish and so looked at church history to see what really happened, not what we think happened based on our many years as protestants with virtually no knowledge of church history. We saw that a church based on faith in Christ as the incarnate messiah started, and that this church still exists. We couldn't not be a part of it at that point. (It's probably obvious, but might be worth mentioning because of a little kerfuffle above, that we believe the original church that still exists today is the Eastern Orthodox church, not the Roman Catholic one. I know and fully respect that my Catholic friends do not agree with this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great read. I am impressed at the civility that has taken place when this certainly is/can be a hot topic.

 

I have no opinion really other than thinking to my self "great way to sell books" Not!

 

my faith is always changing as I dig deeper and deeper into the word. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the matrix and have to choose the blue or the red pill but wishing there was a third purple pill that let me have things both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but wishing there was a third purple pill...

 

Careful with the "purple pill" analogy! LOL.

 

A search, a journey, a longing and pressing into God is always a good thing if done honestly and in love. Orthodoxy, although it felt like a complete change of paradigm in our faith at the time, was our "purple pill" that gave us the historical church without having to come under some beliefs we just didn't ascribe to. I'm not trying to press Orthodoxy, more I'm trying to say that often the "pill" will be far different than we think. God bless you on your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that some groups in (relatively) recent years have done this. Jews-for-Jesus and Messianic Christians pop to mind. But historically, from the very early days, Christianity has been a different faith than Judaism (they agree and we agree). Yes, Christians believe that Judaism provided the roots, if you will, of our faith, and many of our practices stem from what the disciples -- as Jewish men - had practiced in the temple, but we are not Jewish, we are not to try to follow Jewish law or co-opt their feasts, we don't call ourselves Jewish Christians (some do, but we ought not), etc. We have our own feasts, our own leadership, our own practices, our own words/names, all focused on the incarnation of the messiah, Jesus Christ.

 

Our family looked into the Messianic movement for a short time (because we longed for a more historical faith), but then we realized we're not Jewish and so looked at church history to see what really happened, not what we think happened based on our many years as protestants with virtually no knowledge of church history. We saw that a church based on faith in Christ as the incarnate messiah started, and that this church still exists. We couldn't not be a part of it at that point. (It's probably obvious, but might be worth mentioning because of a little kerfuffle above, that we believe the original church that still exists today is the Eastern Orthodox church, not the Roman Catholic one. I know and fully respect that my Catholic friends do not agree with this.)

This. And honestly, if Christianity fell apart for me, I would be left with Judaism/Noachide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great read. I am impressed at the civility that has taken place when this certainly is/can be a hot topic.

 

I have no opinion really other than thinking to my self "great way to sell books" Not!

 

my faith is always changing as I dig deeper and deeper into the word. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the matrix and have to choose the blue or the red pill but wishing there was a third purple pill that let me have things both ways.

 

I'm glad it's been civil, and I think it can stay that way, as long as people say things like "I believe this and such", not "Wow, you are SO wrong. What are you smokin'? Your faith couldn't be more off the mark. MY church is the only correct one." :D

 

Obviously, members of various faiths feel that their belief system is the right one for them. That's a no-brainer. Otherwise, why on earth would they be a member?

 

I love learning about other faiths...especially some of the religions that are not as well known to westerners. I find it very interesting and educational, and would love to continue this discussion, as long as people can remain civil about it, and not demean the faith and practices of others. I think the problems arise in these threads when people feel attacked, and then they respond defensively and then the accusations start, and yada, yada, yada....closed thread. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Believing we have the fullness of the gospel does not mean that we think other Christian denominations are wrong. All Christian denominations have differences. Heck, within a single denomination there are differences. A friend of mine visited half a dozen Baptist churches before she found one like the one where she had been raised. She said she never knew there were so many subsets to her denomination. Of course Mormon missioanries would like you to convert to Mormonism. Apparently, the Baptist minister wanted people to convert to be Baptists. What's the difference? I've seen a lot of times where someone is looking for a new church and people say "try mine" and it's just another branch of Christianity.

 

And Apologia was *not* saying the LDS church beliefs are not the same as mainstream Christianity. They were saying that Mormons are not Christian at all. Period. AND that they have the corner on defining what a Christian is.

 

 

My apologies, because I have had this thread up for DAYS to read, but I just never get at my computer.

 

My response is in the area underlined above. According to the last manual we had, The Teaching of George Albert Smith is states that we basically have a corner on the market of the Holy Ghost. Because, we have the "privilege" of the laying of the hands, which is the direct authority of the Priesthood, and that it can not be got any other way. Therefore, we are the only religion that has it. Even being LDS, it left a BAD taste in my mouth. This holier then thou, we are better then everyone else attitude in the verbiage completely turned me off. And not much different then what your talking about above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The LDS Church is newer. Things taken on faith vs. dissecting those things with science are easier in a more recent Church. Other branches of Christianity and Judaism have the benefit of the mists of time.

 

2. I like the LDS stats about how they follow through with their beliefs, how often they attend Church, how much they tithe, how much they pick and choose vs. take the whole gospel and try to live it completely, and how much their children remain in the faith. They compare quite favorably in follow through. Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." I am a convert and every day I spend as a Mormon I am more grateful.

 

3. Other faiths DO have archeological problems (re: the above posts). Like Younger Earthers and the carbon record. Etc.

 

Bottom line: Faith cannot be dissected like scientific specimens. Your heart is converted through other means. Any attempt by a group of uncoverted to completely understand the faith of the converted is fraught with major difficulty and error. Why even go there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My apologies, because I have had this thread up for DAYS to read, but I just never get at my computer.

 

My response is in the area underlined above. According to the last manual we had, The Teaching of George Albert Smith is states that we basically have a corner on the market of the Holy Ghost. Because, we have the "privilege" of the laying of the hands, which is the direct authority of the Priesthood, and that it can not be got any other way. Therefore, we are the only religion that has it. Even being LDS, it left a BAD taste in my mouth. This holier then thou, we are better then everyone else attitude in the verbiage completely turned me off. And not much different then what your talking about above.

 

You are right. LDS persons and leaders sometimes come across (or sometimes just plain ol' *DO*) have/as having a "holier than thou" attitude.

 

I can speak from my person experience in the church that it can be a fine line to walk in stating that we believe we have the Fullness of the Truth, and something to be joyful over and enthusiastic to share, and using that as a stick to beat over the heads of those who don't. Thankfully I've seen the leadership of the church admit that there are good and godly people all over the place, whom the Spirit can and *does* speak to, and discourage members from placing themselves on a pedestal above others. (how well the members take that advice is beyond their control, of course, but it's been my experience that I've seen them try)

 

I know some will still see our claim of having the fullness of Truth as being a statement of arrogance, and indeed there will likely be those whose experience with LDS persons puts feet to that claim. Hopefully my own living of my faith doesn't, however. I am grateful and humble to have the gospel and hope to never come across as arrogant or believing I'm in any way better than someone outside of my faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why even go there?

 

 

Part of the nature of religion is to identify itself as set apart from the rest of the world. Tribalism is natural to humans, and religion happens to be an ancient and time-honored formalization of this. Religious tribalism is based on beliefs of the "supernatural," a concept that by its very nature is impossible to define concretely and rationally. Group identity is therefore regulated to subjectively determined factors that are constantly evolving as society gains knowledge and exposure to new ideas. It's divisive by nature, and Apologia is only doing what it's been trained to do - identify "them" apart from "us."

 

The good news, as I see it anyway, is that we as a species are learning how to unlearn these ancient beliefs. We are learning to question religious authority, scrutinize religious claims, reject religious imperatives that exist solely to protect the religious belief. We're questioning the traditional knee-jerk suspicion and fear of outsiders. We're unlearning "they" are somehow less valued, less dignified, less worthy of sympathy when faced with suffering. The fact that Christians here publicly endorse an idea that one hundred years ago would have been soundly rejected (if not violently), namely the idea that Mormons can be considered one of "us" in the Christian community, is a testament to the fact that religious "truths" are being challenged and modified to incorporate an evolving societal moral code. It's hard to continue to think of "them" as dangerous when "them" is someone you know well and genuinely respect. Access to different beliefs through easier mobility and the internet break down these borders that Apologia hasn't yet let go. In reply to your question, "why even go there," I would argue the answer is, "because they've been trained that 'going there' is essential."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My apologies, because I have had this thread up for DAYS to read, but I just never get at my computer.

 

My response is in the area underlined above. According to the last manual we had, The Teaching of George Albert Smith is states that we basically have a corner on the market of the Holy Ghost. Because, we have the "privilege" of the laying of the hands, which is the direct authority of the Priesthood, and that it can not be got any other way. Therefore, we are the only religion that has it. Even being LDS, it left a BAD taste in my mouth. This holier then thou, we are better then everyone else attitude in the verbiage completely turned me off. And not much different then what your talking about above.

 

We do believe we have the fullness of the gospel and authority from God to perform baptisms and give the gift of the Holy Ghost etc. We also believe everyone can have these same things. That's why we have such a huge missionary force. :) We want to give these wonderful blessings to all of God's children because we feel the joy it brings and we want to share the good news! We think everyone should have the opportunity to hear about the gospel so that they can then choose to accept it or not.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not meant to come across as arrogance. Often times its excitement about having these blessing that is misinterpreted as "holier than thou" I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My apologies, because I have had this thread up for DAYS to read, but I just never get at my computer.

 

My response is in the area underlined above. According to the last manual we had, The Teaching of George Albert Smith is states that we basically have a corner on the market of the Holy Ghost. Because, we have the "privilege" of the laying of the hands, which is the direct authority of the Priesthood, and that it can not be got any other way. Therefore, we are the only religion that has it. Even being LDS, it left a BAD taste in my mouth. This holier then thou, we are better then everyone else attitude in the verbiage completely turned me off. And not much different then what your talking about above.

 

 

I'm not sure which lesson in the GA Smith book you're referring to, but I do think it's important to note that the LDS church teaches that there is a difference between the "gift of the Holy Ghost", which is what is received through the laying on of hands by those who have been given authority to confer it, and the "influence of the Holy Ghost", which is available to everyone, everywhere, at the discretion of the Holy Ghost. (More on that here for those interested: http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng). Also, that "gift of the Holy Ghost" is not synonymous with the "gifts of the Spirit", which are given to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation.

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


×
×
  • Create New...