Ancient History, I know, but.... [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

09-06-1999, 10:20 PM

Ok, Monty and I have a history. Well, not really, but I feel like the guy has it in for me. He has publicly said that he doesn't trust me one bit, and he has even recorded our IM conversations on AOL, which I think is VERY unethical. Maybe he's recorded every IM convo that he has, I don't know, but it's still not right. He regularly twists my words, and tries to trip me up. I'm just sick of it.

Monty, obviously, you're reading this, so I'm not talking behind your back. Please, I just want peace between us. Can there be a peace? I said I'm sorry before to you directly. Remember? Back when I apologized? I'll say it again, because I really want there to be peace. I'm sorry I said all those bad things about Mormonism in the past. I've not said anything bad since my other apology, so, you know that I'm sincere. I just feel like you've done me wrong Monty. All I want is to post in peace.

Furt: I know they don't respect me one tiny bit. That's why I'm not preaching anymore. (Even though the urge to do so in incredible) They'll get no condemnation from me. Just a mouthful of my opinions, which, I'm sure they can swallow.

Auraseer: I said that Monty's ways were evil, not Monty himself. But anyway, I was angry, and not serious. His ways aren't "evil," and Monty knows it. Right Monty?

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Monty

09-07-1999, 12:11 AM

Got news for you Adam; I record all IM conversations automatically. What I don't do is lie about them. You are a proven liar.

Monty

09-07-1999, 12:12 AM

Oh, what the hey; here's a follow-up. Not only I, but AOL, considers IM and email to be correspondence; therefore, I'm well within my rights and within ethical rules of behaviour to keep a record of all such.

09-07-1999, 12:52 AM

Ok Monty, I figured you kept all IM on record(see my post). That really isn't the heart of the matter anyway. I guess your responses mean that there can't be peace between us.

I don't care when David, Phil, Waste, Rich, Slythe, and the rest of the gang talk smack about me, because they aren't Christian. They can say whatever they please, and it won't bother me. But you argued with me that you are Christian, and that's why it bothers me when you won't accept my apology. You hold me responsible for "lying." (I'd like to see proof that I've lied recently) That's fine, and when I lie, I'll admit it.

So, I think I should ask you to follow the Scriptures, and "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way." Romans 14:13

I'm extending an olive branch. No judgement, no stumbling blocks, from you, or ME. Please.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

David B

09-07-1999, 07:31 AM

ARG said:They'll get no condemnation from me. Just a mouthful of my opinions, which, I'm sure they can swallow.Believe me, Adam, we don't swallow anything you say.I don't care when David, Phil, Waste, Rich, Slythe, and the rest of the gang talk smack about me, because they aren't Christian. They can say whatever they please, and it won't bother me.Funny, it sure looks like it bothers you a lot of the time, especially when we ask you to question your own beliefs or point out how insecure you seem in those beliefs...

Falcon

09-07-1999, 09:13 AM

You know, I was going to stay out of this, but...

Adam said:
I don't care when David, Phil, Waste, Rich, Slythe, and the rest of the gang talk smack about me, because they aren't Christian. They can say whatever they please, and it won't bother me.

Hmmm...does it bother you that jodih and I argue with you, then? Because we're Christians who disagree with you on damn near everything. And Adam, what David and company have said *has* bothered you. Maybe not as much as what Monty's said (which I agree with, btw), but it's bothered you just the same.

GLWasteful

09-07-1999, 09:36 AM

Adam:I don't care when David, Phil, Waste, Rich, Slythe, and the rest of the gang talk smack about me, because they aren't Christian. They can say whatever they please, and it won't bother me.

Is that what I've been doing? "Talking smack"? It's not smack, Adam, to point out the wrongheadedness of your so-called 'arguments', nor is it smack to tell you that what you claim to believe, some of us find ridiculous.

All we are doing is presenting the truth as we see it, and as it has been established by numerous others. You, on the other hand, are simply parroting what you have been told by those within the tight confines of your church.

Waste
Flick Lives!

09-07-1999, 09:45 AM

Guys, I'm talking about recent stuff here. No Falcon, you don't bother me, and I haven't even seen Jodih for many weeks. Even Bill, who has argued strongly with me in the past, originated this thread with an apology to me, and others.

I think I'll stop mentioning names, because I'd have to mention the entire SD community if I want to cover everyone who's said a word to me. Let's just say that I'm wating for Monty's response to my latest post.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

09-07-1999, 09:53 AM

Hey Waste, long time no see. You just reminded me of something. I DO take offense when anyone talks about "smack" about God, and Jesus. Or when they totally misinterpret Scripture, or give misinformation about Pentecostal beliefs. I just can't tolerate it sometimes. It's happened before, and it even happened with you Waste.

But when someone attacks ME, I usually let it roll off my back.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

VegForLife

09-07-1999, 11:43 AM

I DO take offense when anyone talks about "smack" about God, and Jesus.

Geez, I didn't even know they were junkies. . .

But when someone attacks ME, I usually let it roll off my back.

You might want to consider doing that when someone attacks God, as well: I hear he's not currently in the market for a defense attorney. . .

Rich

VegForLife

09-07-1999, 01:29 PM

I don't care when David, Phil, Waste, Rich, Slythe, and the rest of the gang talk smack about me, because they aren't Christian.
By the way, Adam, by your definition of the word, I believe that both Phil and I are Christian, though neither of us uses this moniker now. I don't know about the rest of the bunch, and, most likely, neither do you.

Rich

Jodi

09-07-1999, 01:56 PM

I'm still here, Adam, I've just concluded it is more productive to bang my head against the wall than to try to discuss religion with you. I respect your right to believe what you want, but I have nothing but contempt for your arrogant judging of everyone who doesn't agree with you. I also find it difficult to converse with you because you apparently have problems in making or following a logical argument. David B. and Phil (and others) may disagree with my beliefs, but at least I can discuss the idea and relative merits of belief systems with them -- I can't with you. I can also discuss other topics with them; you apparently limit your posts to religious topics, and since I've decided not to discuss religion with you, you naturally haven't seen much of me lately -- and are unlikely to see much of me in the future, either.

Oh, and Falcon, I doubt very much that Adam would admit that you and I are really Christians; he's told me in the past that I am not.

SkeptiJess

09-07-1999, 02:09 PM

Hey Waste, long time no see. You just reminded me of something. I DO take offense when anyone talks about "smack" about God, and Jesus. Or when they totally misinterpret Scripture,

One person's 'misinterpretation' can be another's interpretation, you know. Just because someone disagrees with you interpretation of something (even the bible) doesn't make THEM wrong.

or give misinformation about Pentecostal beliefs. I just can't tolerate it sometimes. It's happened before, and it even happened with you Waste. - Adam

And yet, you don't hesitate to give misinformation about other faiths (catholicism, the LDS, wiccans, etc. ad infinatum). Even when corrected, you continue to spout the same lies. I say 'lies' because 'misinformation' indicates a mistake, while your statements tend to be willful.

Play fair, Adam.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

VegForLife

09-07-1999, 04:04 PM

I'm still here
Glad to hear it, jodih. When you dropped out of the "Black Miss America" thread, I thought you were gone as well. Maybe that was another "brick wall" thing, I know it felt like it to me. . .

Rich

Monty

09-07-1999, 04:57 PM

Adam: Jess pretty well summed it up. I don't feel actual enmity towards you; what it is, htough, is astonishment at your actions and pity towards you.

Pity because you refuse to accept that others ideas may be valid. Astonishment that you are incapable of understanding the English definition of that English word "may."

Why not admit that what you posted before was not only mean but also wrong? Admit that you've no training in what you've been espousing--not even informal training.

As I've told you before, I'm not adverse to encouraging you and helping you to understand the differences between Religion, Theology, and Catechism.

I await your admission that others, such as LDS, are Christians. We'll go from there.

09-07-1999, 09:45 PM

Waste: So, making fun of God, for you, is like me making fun of the Easter bunny right? That's a fine kettle of fish.
I did, indeed, poke fun at your god, all in the process of poking fun at you. If your god is so insecure that he can't take a shot or two from li'l ol' me, who thinks that he's a figment of your imagination, then you should maybe look into a stronger deity, one with more self-worth.
Waste, do you like it when someone makes fun of your father? Or when someone pokes fun at your best friend? Indeed, when you make fun of God, it affects me, because as a Christian, I have a strong relationship with Him.

Rich: I'm not sure what you're definition of Christian is, but I know for a fact that Phil Dennison is NOT Christian. Right Phil? He WAS Christian, but no longer is. and if you ARE a Christian, then I apologize for my error.

Jodih: Good to see you're still around. We had our spats, and I hope that you can one day talk to me, without fear that I'll block you out, or be rude to you. If you check out MPSIMS, and GQ, you'll see that I can, and do post stuff that has nothing to do with religion.

Jess:And yet, you don't hesitate to give misinformation about other faiths (catholicism, the LDS, wiccans, etc. ad infinatum). Even when corrected, you continue to spout the same lies. I say 'lies' because 'misinformation' indicates a mistake, while your statements tend to be willful.
Again, this is my past. There's no lies coming from me anymore. I admit to my mistakes. And BTW, I never lied about Wiccans. I mearely asked a few questions...you can even ask Auraseer.
And, I do play fair...or at least, I'm really trying. :)

Monty:I await your admission that others, such as LDS, are Christians.
I plead the Fifth. We will always disagree Monty. But it doesn't mean that there can't be peace, or like Jess says, that we can "play fair."

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Monty

09-07-1999, 09:54 PM

Sorry, Adam; on this issue you can not plead the fifth. Answer "yes" or "no" and provide basis for your answer: "Are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints themselves Christians?" (bolding mine)

Answer "yes" or "no" and provide basis for your answer: "Are members of the Roman Catholic Church themselves Christians?"

09-07-1999, 11:38 PM

I'm not going to discuss this with you further Monty. Please stop trying to trap me. No more stumbling blocks.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

AuraSeer

09-07-1999, 11:47 PM

Adam, neither of those two questions constitutes a trap. You have stated your opinions on both topics before, in multiple other threads; here, Monty is simply asking you to clearly restate what you believe.

(BTW, because by name was mentioned, I'll say FTR that I don't recall Adam making any incorrect assertions about Wicca. Or any assertions about it at all, CTTOI...)

------------------
Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle.

09-08-1999, 12:15 AM

Like I said, I plead the Fifth.

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

GLWasteful

09-08-1999, 12:52 AM

I DO take offense when anyone talks about "smack" about God, and Jesus. Or when they totally misinterpret Scripture, or give misinformation about Pentecostal beliefs. I just can't tolerate it sometimes. It's happened before, and it even happened with you Waste.
So, according to Adam's world view, if I make fun of his deity, then I am to cease and desist. If, however, he makes claims that my actions are controlled by Satan, then I am to meekly accept such? Ditto for him calling me deluded? Well, piss off, son. You and your beliefs are what I would call superstitious on a good day, something less kind and more pointed on a bad.

I did, indeed, poke fun at your god, all in the process of poking fun at you. If your god is so insecure that he can't take a shot or two from li'l ol' me, who thinks that he's a figment of your imagination, then you should maybe look into a stronger deity, one with more self-worth.

Waste
Flick Lives!

09-08-1999, 08:14 AM

What is this, a court of law or an informal message board? Monty, I don't think Adam would believe that the LDS are Christians if Jesus himself came down and told him so. I think you're wasting your time.

GLWasteful

09-08-1999, 08:15 AM

Adam:So, making fun of God, for you, is like me making fun of the Easter bunny right? That's a fine kettle of fish.
What?

Honestly, Adam, I do not care if someone makes fun of my father. Hell, I only met the guy once. Seemed like a nice enough fella, but more than capable of taking care of himself. As far as my best friend? If I can poke fun at my best friend, why on earth should I care if someone else does it? My best friend is a grownup, and also able to look out for him/herself.

And as Rich, I believe, already pointed out, this god of yours is not in the market for a defense attorney. So, why, then, do you feel the need to get your knickers in a twist when someone, in your colorful phrase, "talks smack" about him? Don't you think that he can take care of himself? Maybe if you would learn to accept that there are others who feel differently than you do, then you wouldn't be looked upon with such scorn. Better yet would be if you would actually examine some of the things that you say, but I doubt that you will do that.

Waste
Flick Lives!

vanillanice

09-08-1999, 08:31 AM

Adam, I'll swallow all your opinions,whole :o

vanillanice

09-08-1999, 08:32 AM

Attention People: That was a joke,and I hope Adam Doesn't get it! ;)

SkeptiJess

09-08-1999, 10:33 AM

>> (BTW, because by name was mentioned, I'll say FTR that I don't recall Adam making any incorrect assertions about Wicca. Or any assertions about it at all, CTTOI...) <<

Upon reflection, Adam hasn't made the same kinds of assertions about Wicca as he has about some other religions. When I included Wicca among the faiths maligned by Adam, I was thinking of his response after visiting a Wiccan website -- he said that he took a quick peek around and fled. The implication being that the site was so scary and bad (read "evil and wrong") that Adam feared for his spiritual health. To me, this smacked of the common confusion between Wicca and Satanism and I construed it as such. Perhaps I was wrong.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

09-08-1999, 10:38 AM

Jess, he did that to the American Atheists home page too. How someone be so afraid to even read about other viewpoints is beyond me. It says "INSECURE ABOUT MY RELIGION" in big neon letters, if you ask me.

09-08-1999, 10:41 AM

Er, that is, "how someone can be...."

Also, I don't want the statement above to mean that I endorse American Atheists or Wicca in any way. But at least I'm not afraid to read their web sites! (g)

Jodi

09-08-1999, 11:17 AM

Well, I must defend Adam to this extent: I think it's unfair to ask someone what they believe and then attack them for their opinion. I mean, if they're stuffing their opinion down your throat, or even offering it up for criticism or comment, that's one thing, but that's a different thing that affirmatively soliciting someone's opinion solely to attack it.

Adam has been pretty clear in the past that he believes that anyone who doesn't adhere to his specific religious beliefs is not a Christian. I'm not; Falcon's not; Strainger's not; Snarkberry's not; Monty's not. I think this belief is incorrect under any reasonable definition of the word "Christian," but I respect his right to hold it. I only got irritated when he took it upon himself uninvited and unsolicited to inform me that I'm not a Christian. If I had asked him for his opinion, I could hardly complain about the content of that opinion -- but I hadn't asked.

Monty, on the other hand, is asking what Adam believes, and he's asking solely to debate the validity of Adam's beliefs -- while at the same time objecting to Adam's scepticism of his beliefs. Under such circumstances, I think Adam is right to refuse to be drawn -- especially since he's already answered the question anyhow.

furt

09-08-1999, 11:56 AM

How does accepting (or not) LDS as Christians constitute a criteria for one's niceness? I mean, whether or not LDS teachings are compatible with Orthodox Christianity or not is a theological Question. Does having a "wrong" answer to a theological question necessarily make me a mean-spirited, nasty person?

I, personally, do not think LDS teachings are biblical; I believe they are sufficiently different from orthodox, historic Christianity, as defined by the Bible, by the Church and the Creeds, as to constitute a seperate religion. Hence, I would not consider LDSs as fitting into the theological category of "Christian." I should add that the Pope and Billy Graham agree with me (Or better to say I with them...). Obviously, if someone want to call themselves "Christian," I can't stop them, and I don't try. But, as a matter of theological taxonomy, I don't agree.

Despite that, I, amazingly, have never defamed, insulted, assaulted, punched, kicked or shot a LDS, nor have they me. I am cordial and respectful, and they are too. I had a couple of LDS roomates for a few months, and we never once argued over it. They were a little wierd, but I think that was just them. Almost uniformly I have found LDS to be Good People. I venture to guess they think roughly the same of me. Moreover, I bear no ill will to any LDS on this board and would be happy to be their freind if they will have me. I have Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Atheist and who knows what else freinds. Staggeringly, I have even had theological conversations with them devoid of acrimony, even when I told them I disagreed.

Now I'm not going to get into the theological arguments; I haven't read up on LDS in ages and I have a policy of not having those discussions on the net--where it almost invariably DOES slide into acrimony, due to the limitations of the medium.

But my point is that this thinking that "If ARG (or anyone) believes ____, he must be a bad person," is absurd. It's the same kind of thinking that says "because you oppose me on this political issue, you therefore are racist/sexist/immoral." Heck, it's the same thinking that says "All Packers fans are bastards."

ARG has said some not-so-nice things in the past, and he's said plenty of stupid things. If you want to waste him for those, go right ahead. But let's leave off with this crap about "If you don't agree that LDS are Christians, it means you hate them all."

------------------
"It all started with marbles in school..."

Jodi

09-08-1999, 01:14 PM

But to what end, Monty? I mean, we can all define "green" as a particular color made of a mix of yellow and blue, and further agree in practice what "green" is as a matter of fact by reference to green objects (grass, apples, whatever). And Adam may come along and say that "green" is really "blue" -- blue adulterated with yellow -- and insist on referring to it as blue. You might establish that most people accept green as an "independent" color and most people agree that blue means something else, but that doesn't change Adam's hypothetical take on the situation.

Adam obviously ascribes to a very narrow definition of Christianity; he limits the term to those who believe substantially the same things that he does. Do most people accept such a narrow definition? Clearly not. But that doesn't mean he's "wrong" to employ it for himself.

I understand your frustration and anger at being excluded as a Christian -- it pissed me off when he tried to tell me I'm not a Christian when (a) AFAIC, I pretty clearly am, and (b) much of my personal definition comes from my self-identity as a Christian. He was wrong to do it to me, and he was wrong to do it to you. But you appear to be now demanding that he "take it back;" he can't take it back, because it's what he really believes -- irritating as it is -- and your continuing insistence that he do so is only an invitation to another argument.

Similarly, he's not going to agree to use your (our) definition of Christianity, because it isn't his. Is he wrong in that? I think so, but then I think he's wrong about a lot of things.

furt

09-08-1999, 01:24 PM

What he said.

smilingjaws

09-08-1999, 02:51 PM

From Monty:
"What I did say, and what I've asked, is for him to show if he's going to continue using his own definitions of words or the definitions used by the majority of people who speak the language."

I find this rather amusing. As I have pointed out in a previous discussion, the World Council of Churches continues to refuse to admit the LDS church because the "majority" of Christian religions do not, in fact, consider the beliefs of Mormons to be substantially equivalent to Christian theology. And, as I pointed out before, espousing typical Mormon beliefs--such as God was once a man, man can become God, eternal marriage, Jesus is God's physical offspring, etc., would get you excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Just because someone includes part of your beliefs in their religion, it does not follow they are the same as your religion. I think Jews would be highly offended if Christians started referring to themselves as Jews simply because they both base their religions in the Old Testament and the Christians had "new revelations" that added to the religion. Each is separate and distinct.
For orthodox Christian religions to change their minds and accept Mormons as complete equals in the worship of Jesus Christ would require them to abandon most of the basic tenants of their theological beliefs.

P.S. This kid Adam writes a nice apology. He starts off really strongminded, but he tries. Monty doesn't give quite such a positive impression--did the "incorrect" translations of the Bible mispeak--do Mormons now believe that forgiving those who seek forgiveness is optional? If so, another distinct difference between orthodox Christianity and the LDS.

David B

09-08-1999, 02:54 PM

Snarkberry said:How someone be so afraid to even read about other viewpoints is beyond me. It says "INSECURE ABOUT MY RELIGION" in big neon letters, if you ask me.I agree 100% (as I have indicated elsewhere. But, hey, just ask Adam, he'll tell you he isn't at all insecure. Yet another case where what Adam says and how Adam acts are two very different things.

09-08-1999, 04:42 PM

Well, in Adam's defense, nobody's perfect. If someone ever holds me to everything I've said, I'll be in trouble! (g)

Monty

09-08-1999, 05:35 PM

Smilingjaws: & within 24 hours that kid, Adam, blows it. Reread what I've posted in response to him throughout the board and y'all might just see that I've given him an "out" in the answer to the queries above. That would be the judicious use of the word "opinion."

If he would like to use the word "green" for something else, fine. So long as he identifies it as an opinion.

Adam is apparently unable to understand what an opinion is. Apparently, "Truth" is defined in his usage as "what Adam believes."

09-08-1999, 10:35 PM

Boy Monty, you REALLY can't let things go can you? Again you mention my apology? Which is in the past? Can we move on now, please? I think it's best if I don't say anything about LDS anymore. Whether it's good, or bad. In fact, I think it's best that I not give any opinions on any religion ever again on this board. Some people are bound to get the wrong idea.

Jodih, Furt, Smiling Jaws, Bill...etc. Thanks for the defense. It's nice to see that you understand what's going on, even though you disagree with some of my beliefs.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

09-08-1999, 11:21 PM

Adam wrote:

Jodih, Furt, Smiling Jaws, Bill...etc. Thanks for the defense. It's nice to see that you understand what's going on, even though you disagree with some of my beliefs.

Whoever said we have to agree on every subject in order to respect each other? YW.

09-09-1999, 12:00 AM

What got me irritated was when he said something like, "Well, let's just call Mormonism a false religion," also uninvited and unsolicited. I'm over that now, and I realize that Adam is entitled to his own opinion, but at first I got mad at him and stayed mad for a while, simply because he had attacked my religion without even knowing what it really teaches.

As far as I'm concerned, that chapter of our online relationship is over--Adam has apologized, I have apologized, and I'm willing to call it ancient history. (And BTW, I do respect Adam, I just don't adhere to his belief system.)

VegForLife

09-09-1999, 12:49 AM

Rich: I'm not sure what you're definition of Christian is, but I know for a fact that Phil Dennison is NOT Christian. Right Phil? He WAS Christian, but no longer is. and if you ARE a Christian, then I apologize for my error.
I didn't mention my definition. I mentioned yours. If you belong to a fundamentalist sect with which I am unfamiliar which teaches that one can lose his or her salvation, then my apologies.

Rich

Monty

09-09-1999, 12:54 AM

Furt:But let's leave off with this crap about "If you don't agree that LDS are Christians, it means you hate them all."

Nowhere did I say that, nor did I say Adam said that Adam hates all who don't belong to his sect. What I did say, and what I've asked, is for him to show if he's going to continue using his own definitions of words or the definitions used by the majority of people who speak the language.

Monty

09-09-1999, 12:58 AM

Jodih: I'm not askance to someone asking me to examine the validity of my beliefs. Quite the contrayr, in fact; I question the validity of that belief quite often as I question the validity of all beliefs.

But there is a thing called language and it is composed of words and those words have definitions. One of those words is Christian. The definition, IMHO, is pretty clear.

Now, you may note, I did not ask "Do you believe those particular Christians are in error?" Heck, Paul wrote to folks who, in his view, were steeped in error. Yet he still called them Christians.

I think I'll go with the example set by Saul of Tarsus when it comes to this.

Cheers!
-Chip

smilingjaws

09-09-1999, 08:38 AM

May I please apologise for misspelling tenet as tenant?
Sorry!

Polycarp

09-10-1999, 07:12 AM

Smilingjaws, I have no objection to you having tenants of your beliefs, so long as they pay their intellectual rent on time and keep their dogmas from shedding all over the furniture! :)

Adam -- I think that every poster here values the exchange of ideas between people of differing viewpoints, and the chance to learn from each other. Nobody wants you to keep totally away from any question involving religion, just avoid bashing other people.

E.g., I think that the whole idea of Wicca is out to lunch, so far as I know anything of it. (And what I have seen does not encourage me to go any deeper in it.) This is a statement of opinion. I have not by this statement slammed AuraSeer or Matt_mcl, who are devout Wiccans. (Right? Don't want to make any misstatements in this of all posts.) I have not called them stupid for practicing it. They are getting something valuable to them out of it, and from what I've seen of each of them, it's a path to God for them. The fact that I think that it's getting from San Diego to Los Angeles by way of Halifax, Nova Scotia so far as metaphors of the Way go is my opinion, which I do not try to inflict on them. Nor have I said that a vengeful God will take them to Hell for following their Craft, without even passing Go and collecting 200 souls. If I believed that, I would find a way to say to them that I sincerely thought that and wanted to warn them of the peril I saw for them, without in the process castigating the beliefs they sincerely hold. Same for LDS. My understanding of Mormon theology leads me to think that they are not only in left field, but in a whole nother ballpark. But I respect them for who they are (great people, by and large, including all the LDS posters here) and what they sincerely believe, and I will argue with respect for their opinions and beliefs. God being greater than any of us, it's entirely possible that we're all mistaken, and it's quite clear that all but one or two of us are mistaken on any point we disagree on -- regardless of who's right, no more than one incompossible idea may be valid. (Always wanted to find a place where I could use "incompossible" in a meaningful sentence!) For the record, by any definition I know, LDS are Christians, heretical by anyone's standards but their own, but valid Christians. They have been baptized (and baptism by heretics is valid even under RC dogma); they have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. They just think he took a short detour to America en route to Heaven to save the Nephites and the Lamanites (which I always used to get confused with chocolate drinks and that plastic they seal your ID card in). ;)

Adam, we've bandied labels about here before. In your opinion, what constitutes being a Christian? How do you become one? How do you cease being one? I think I know your answers, but I'm asking you to post them verbatim. Without agreed definitions, argument gets nowhere.

smilingjaws

09-10-1999, 09:29 AM

I am really, really curious why facts seem to be ignored in the issue of whether or not to consider Mormons Christian. Practically EVERY orthodox Christian religion teaches that Mormons are not Christian according to the teachings of the New and Old Testament--this because the Mormons have added additional texts whose teachings contradict the basic Christian beliefs.
Basic Christian Beliefs include such things as
God is and was not ever a man--he is omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful. He has existed in all time and space and will do so for eternity. To believe that he was once a man is to demean his greatness, his Godliness, and the nature of his Supreme Being. It is heretical and blasphemous to believe that God was once a man.

God's Son is Jesus. Jesus is both wholly man and wholly God. He was born of a virgin--not born the physical son of a god-man and Mary.

Lucifer was once an angel--not one of the sons of God. He attempted to set himself up as equal to God and he has become God's enemy. Satan is NOT Jesus' brother--indeed he is not a MAN he is a fallen ANGEl. Men do not become angels. Angels do not become Men.

No man can become a God. The very idea is blasphemous. The sheer arrogance of that thought is astounding.

There is no marriage in heaven--Jesus himself declared this. God doesn't have wives. There are no spirit babies which form the souls of earthly babies.

Man is saved solely through the Grace of God. His position in relation to God is that of dross before purity. God is so awe inspiring that man cannot even look at him except through the Grace of Jesus.

God does not call men to heaven with secret names. God does not let men call their wives to heaven with secret names. God is not bound by the ceremonies of man so there is no need for ceremonial baptism of the dead. Living people are baptized as a visible sign to the world that they chose to be followers of Christ. Baptism is one of the holiest and sacred of ceremonies. Christian faiths differ on their practice of baptism, but all believe it is important and not simply a prayer or wish for God's grace. It is a holy act of devotion on the part of the servant toward his God.

These are a few of the differences between Mormon theology and Christian theology.
The World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches have refused to admit the Mormons because they do not believe they are part of the catholic (note the little "c") church.
This FACT has been pointed out several times. Yet, posters still insist that the majority of Christians also consider Mormons to be Christians.
I wonder if you do not mean--the Christians you know consider Mormons to be Christian. Lots of cultural Christians would agree with that statement--mostly people who do not actively practice their faith or practice an individualized faith sans fellowship with other believers in an organized setting. Church leaders, such as the Pope, the Bishops, the SBC President, the Synods, the councils, the whatevers, and the devout members of these churches do NOT consider Mormons as Christian, but instead as followers of a religion based on the Bible but whose tenets have so drastically departed from the New Testament beliefs as to blasphemy.
Please, please use the facts. Orthodox Christianity--both Catholic and Protestant--do not consider Mormons Christians. Check out some of their web pages. Many have information on why they don't believe Mormons are Christian.
Many individual Christians may not agree with the position of their church and may have more inclusive standards. But, the fact remains that Mormons are NOT considered or accepted as Christian by the majority of Christians.
This does not mean they are not nice people, hard working, etc. This does not mean that the Mormon church is now a threat to social stability as it once was in its early days. This does not mean they should be shunned, discriminated against, etc. (Although I don't make a practice of welcoming missionaries into my home) :-)
I might also point out that the Mormon church doesn't think much of other Christian churches either--otherwise why are they so busy trying to prozetelize believers in other religions into their own? Because they believe they are the only true church. Their original founder said that the other churches were wrong and they are still trying to convert Catholics, Presbyterians, Jews, New Agers, Shintoists (sp?) etc, etc, etc.
AND, let's not forget--if a Mormon leaves the Mormon church to join a Christian faith--his family and friends will usually become highly upset and do everything possible to prevent him leaving, just as Christian families do when their children become Mormons. The Mormon Church will try hard to keep its members from apostocizing and joining Christian churches. Some people have had to resort to threatening lawsuits in order to get their name removed from the rolls of the Mormon church (see stories on the exmormon.org web site).
Most orthodox Christian Churches accept other Christian faiths as being basically the same--in other words--same product, different brand--although sometimes you will find individuals who have a different viewpoint and there are still Catholic-Protestant divisions. Mormons are a different product all together--they start with some of the same basic resources but so much more is added the end product is different.
That being said--that is why I think it was entirely inappropriate for Monty to demand that Adam admit that Monty was a Christian. It would be demanding that Adam renounce his own religious beliefs in order to accept what he (and the vast majority of other Christians) believe to be blasphemy.

AuraSeer

09-10-1999, 09:42 AM

Aw geez, this was shaping up to be such a nice thread. Can we please not start another holy war?

pldennison

09-10-1999, 10:14 AM

If a=b and a=c, then b=c. If Jesus=man and Jesus=God, then God=man. I'm not sure why smilingjaws seems to have such a problem with that. Logically speaking, it's so basic as to boggle the mind. As a point of theology, it seems fairly obvious.

09-10-1999, 10:33 AM

Smilingjaws: I disagree. There is *no* church that is more Christian than the LDS church. As for what others think, it really doesn't matter. Just because "a majority of Christians" believe something, doesn't make it necessarily true. In the past and present, "a majority of Jews" think that all Christian churches are out to lunch. And guess what? "A majority of Wiccans" don't believe that Christianity is true.

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. :P

Polycarp

09-10-1999, 02:04 PM

I'm not going to dispute your assertions, Smilingjaws, because factually you seem to have all the arguments laid out on target.

My point, such as it was, was that it was not orthodoxy so much as orthopraxy that counted -- obviously, from the point of view of orthodoxy, there is only One True Church and everybody else is wrong (though we will all differ as to which it is! ;)). On the other hand, virtually every church suggests that one or both of two things is "necessary for salvation": either one is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or one makes the confession of Jesus as their personal Savior and Lord. Latter Day Saints, to the best of my knowledge and belief, meet both these criteria. Never mind that their understanding of God's nature would give the average Catholic or Protestant the screaming heebee-jeebees, and that the Jesus they confess has a quite different post-Resurrection life than any evangelical Christian would accept. Tom could never accept the priest of my church, much less her husband, as having "valid orders." Adam would find our doctrine completely off the wall, particularly the Real Presence and the optional auricular confession, to say nothing of our chalice-bearer who is "unequally yoked" in fundy. parlance -- her wife is not a Christian. (Yes, you read that right.) And Monty and Snarkberry would think our rejection of the Doctrine of Eternal Progression marks us as hopelessly heretical.

Do I have a point in all this? Yep -- we're all trying to find the Way (Adam, do NOT quote the Gospel of John apropos this; you know the distinction I'm trying to make here between Jesus as the Way and the proper beliefs and behaviors of Christians as the Way.) Then you have Chaim and Akiva. Does anyone seriously doubt where they stand vis-a-vis God? Then Aura and Matt, and a couple of others. Then David and several other people whose rational conscience does not allow them to put their trust in some mythical construct that does not fit their understanding of what the world around them is like. I honor their disbelief.

J.B. Phillips once wrote a book entitled Your God Is Too Small in which he attacked several misapprehensions of what God must be like, e.g., the petty tyrant, the lazy watchmaker, etc. My God is big enough to have love in his heart for all these people, and not to incontinently condemn a one of them.

tracer

09-10-1999, 02:12 PM

I always thought My God Can Beat Up Your God would make a great book title.

09-10-1999, 02:25 PM

Smilingjaws wrote:

Let me try another analogy. There are churches which call themselves Mormon. These groups are offshoots of the orginial Mormon church. In fact, they more closely adhere to the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young--they still practice polygamy. If I say, oh of course, Mormons still practice polygamy, Snarkberry, you will quickly correct me--these groups are not the "true" Mormon church--they practice things that the current leaders of the Mormon Church had stated will lead to excommunication. They do call themselves Mormons. If I, (as a non-mormon) chose to believe that all people who call themselves Mormons are Mormons, then I would be perfectly right in believing that Mormons still practice polygamy. Instead, I accept that they are not mainline Mormons, but instead are entirely different groups representing their own interpretation of the Mormon faith.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. However, the word "Mormon" is not the official name of my church. If another church tried to call itself "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," my church would strenuously object (and rightly so), and perhaps even take legal action.

Other Christian churches do not hold the trademark to the word "Christian" to describe their churches. And if you want to know the truth, the LDS church believes that all other Christian churches, although they possess some truth, are essentially apostate Christians with *no authority* from God to act in His name. Yet we still are willing to call them "Christians." Too bad they don't extend the same courtesy to us as we do to them, huh?

Maybe a kinder solution would be to adopt another term. Although it comes from a kinda wierd source--Madeline Murray O'Hair called Christians "Christers" Why can't the Mormon church adopt some term like that--to indicate that they do base their religion partly on Jesus Christ--but not entirely? It just would seem more honest, open, and forthright.

The LDS church is based entirely on Jesus Christ. He is the center of it, He stands at its head, and its doctrine comes directly from Him. Why don't you call your religion "satan worshipers" instead of "Christians"? It would make as much sense as making Mormons call themselves anything other than Christian.

Sorry to disappoint you, Jaws, but Mormons are Christians, and as hard as you try to discredit our Christian beliefs, you will never succeed. We will always be Christians, whether or not some silly world council of apostate Christian churches admits us or not.

smilingjaws

09-10-1999, 03:17 PM

Snarkberry,
Sorry I made you so upset. I can understand. Unfortunately, Christianity does have limits and boundaries. Orthodox religions do chose to live by the boundaries they feel are inherent in their interpretation of the Bible. Being inclusive of beliefs considered heretical would be encouraging or tacit acceptance of heresy. So there's the conflict--make nice and make everyone happy with no standards or have standards and insult people who disagree. It's a hard choice but it gets made. I don't apologise for being part of a religion that choses standards over making nice.
It wasn't nice of you to even suggest we should call orthodox Christians Satanists. I didn't insult your religion--Christers wasn't an insult--just a kinda clever name. I would appreciate it if you didn't insult the religion of millions of people.
And thanks for the update--I had thought the Mormon religion was based partly on Jesus Christ and partly on Joseph Smith's works like the Book of Mormon, POGP, D&C's, and any further utterances from the prophets. When did you change?

09-10-1999, 03:22 PM

Smiling Jaws: A word of advice. It's not smart to argue with the Mormons on this board. I tried it, and it doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked against them. It doesn't matter how many contradictions you show. Some things just can't be argued on the Internet, and I found out the hard way that this is one of them.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

David B

09-10-1999, 03:26 PM

ARG, apparently completely unaware of how ridiculous he was making himself look, said:It's not smart to argue with the Mormons on this board. I tried it, and it doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked against them. It doesn't matter how many contradictions you show. ROFL! Oh, jeez, I'm laughing so hard it hurts! You really don't have any idea, do you? Here, let me spell it out for you:

You have just described yourself to a "T"!

And you wonder why people get upset with you?

Man, oh man, oh man.

09-10-1999, 03:29 PM

Smilingjaws: A great surprise awaits you upon your death.

Adam: You have yet to present a convincing argument that Mormons aren't Christian, especially since you refuse to even read Mormon literature before forming an opinion of them. You haven't a leg to stand on.

09-10-1999, 03:43 PM

Oh, and Smilingjaws, one other thing. You wrote:

I don't apologise for being part of a religion that choses standards over making nice.
It wasn't nice of you to even suggest we should call orthodox Christians Satanists.

The fact that you don't see the contradiction between the first quoted sentence and the last one is pretty ironic. First you say you choose standards over niceness, then you say I'm not being nice. Well, guess what? I choose standards over niceness as well. And to me, orthodox Christianity IS Mormonism and you are the heretic.

VegForLife

09-10-1999, 04:26 PM

Well, but Bill. . . I don't think that statement is supportable, in light of the definition of "orthodox": "conforming to established doctrine; conventional." Now, I have no desire to disparage you or your religious choice (any more than I'd disparage anyone else in the same area, anyway ;)), but you have to admit that doctrine that is specific to the Mormon faith has been around a far shorter time (and is therefore "less established") than the doctrine which the Mormon faith may have in common with other "Christian" denominations. I don't think it really fills the "orthodox" bill.

Adam said:It doesn't matter how many contradictions you show.
This from the guy who said, "Creation is FACT FACT FACT. But believing that would take faith." It is seemingly more important how many contradictions you post than how many you show.

Rich

09-10-1999, 04:36 PM

Rich: "Mormonism," or to be more precise in my wording, "Christianity," has been around since before the world was created. Adam and Eve were "Mormons," although they didn't call their religion by that name. Thus, Mormonism is the ultimate orthodox religion. The religions that call themselves "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity are, in my religious opinion, falsely claiming God's authority for themselves while teaching the commandments of men, not of God.

09-10-1999, 05:13 PM

David, thinking he's so sly, says:You have just described yourself to a "T"!
David, David. I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. You can't compare Mormons, and me, because I don't call myself Mormon. Hmm, did that make sense? Probabaly not.

Let's say we're arguing over evolution. Now, I never said that I was an evolutionist. But in this case, it's as if the Mormons are saying that they are evolutionists too, and it's impossible for you to argue with them.

You fight my fire with water. But a Mormon and Christian use the same book, and fight fire with fire. But they still don't see the contradictions. Do you see where we are nothing alike?

Please tell me you understand me David, because I'm having difficulty explaining myself.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

GLWasteful

09-10-1999, 05:19 PM

I'm having difficulty explaining myself.

This, Adam, should be your sig from this point forward.

Waste
Flick Lives!

09-10-1999, 05:26 PM

Adam: You have yet to present a convincing argument that Mormons aren't Christian, especially since you refuse to even read Mormon literature before forming an opinion of them. You haven't a leg to stand on.

09-10-1999, 05:42 PM

Here's a quote from www.mormons.org (http://www.mormons.org) which chastises me for my recent remarks regarding Smilingjaws's religion:

by Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin

Some people erroneously believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are not Christian. We have difficulty understanding why anyone could accept and promote an idea that is so far from the truth. President Gordon B. Hinckley has described Church members as a people "bound (together) by a common love for our Master, who is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world. We are a covenant people who have taken upon ourselves His holy name."

Our beliefs and actions may differ from those of others, but we, as good Christians, do not criticize other religions or their adherents. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

A dictionary defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus," and "one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." Thus two characteristics identify Christians: First, they profess belief in the Savior, and second, they act in harmony with the Savior's teachings. Faithful members of the Church called Saints or Latter-day Saints, qualify clearly in both characteristics. In our belief and our action, we demonstrate that "Jesus Christ Himself (is) the chief corner stone" of our faith.(Bolding mine--Snark)

I'm sorry, Smilingjaws. I haven't been acting very Christlike, and when I read this, I said to myself, "This applies to me and my words on the SDMB today." Please forgive my unworthy words against your religion. While I still assert that the LDS church is true and that it is the only church on the face of the earth today that has direct authority from God, I also believe that other religions have truth in them, to a greater or lesser extent. To claim the corner on truth is arrogant of me and shows a lack of understanding towards others. I'll work on it. All I can do is pick myself up and start again.

VegForLife

09-10-1999, 05:50 PM

To address two missed points. . .

From Bill:
Adam and Eve were "Mormons," although they didn't call their religion by that name. Thus, Mormonism is the ultimate orthodox religion.
I think I understand the thought that you are trying to convey, Bill, but your statement simply ignores the definition of "orthodox." Is it true that the majority of people who believe in Jesus as the Son of God are Mormons, or believe in many of the tenets of the Mormon faith? No. The mormon faith is therefore not "orthodox" in that the beliefs therein are not conventional or commonplace.

From Adam:
I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. You can't compare Mormons, and me, because I don't call myself Mormon.
David didn't compare you to Mormons (though if he had left out an "m" a comparison might have been appropriate). He quoted you as saying, "I tried it, and it doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked against them. It doesn't matter how many contradictions you show." and responded by saying that you had just described yourself to a "T".

In other words, David's statement has nothing to do with what you call yourself (I've got a few possibilities for you, if you need some), it has to do with the fact that it doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked against your arguments and how many contradictions you are shown pertaining to your arguments, you continue to hold your position.
You fight my fire with water.
One can only hope your fire is not a grease fire.

Rich

09-10-1999, 05:56 PM

VegForLife wrote:

I think I understand the thought that you are trying to convey, Bill,

Then my work here is done. :)

Seriously, the thought I'm trying to convey is that True Christianity (Mormonism) has been around long before other Christian churches were even conceived. Whether you want to call that "orthodox" or not is simply a matter of semantics. Maybe I'm using the word wrong, but I think you get my point.

09-10-1999, 05:59 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having difficulty explaining myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This, Adam, should be your sig from this point forward.
Now, THAT is funny. :D

Bill: As I said, it doesn't matter what evidence I provide. Both you, and Monty have said that you don't see any contradictions in the Bible vs. BOM, and that you have both studied the Bible. I can show you these things until I'm blue in the face, but until they are hidden in your heart, it won't make a difference. And besides, we can't discuss anything over the 'Net. These things must be dealt with in person.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

09-10-1999, 06:04 PM

Dirty Devil

09-10-1999, 06:12 PM

Snarkberry - Regarding Mormans being Christian, I'm just curious how you feel about these two issues:

Brigham Young said "He [Christ} was not begotten by the Holy Ghost...Jesus our elder brother was begotton in the flesh by the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, who is our father in heaven." (The Journal of Discourses 1:51).

But the bible states that Mary was a virgin, and that Jesus was conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18-20). Even the Book Of Morman affirms this (Alma 7:10). Why the contradiction?

Joseph Smith said "In the beginning the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (The Journal of Discourse, Vol. 6).

The Bible, on the otherhand, consistently teaches only one unique God (for example Deuternonomy 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60, John 17:3, James 2:19). What's going on here?

09-10-1999, 06:13 PM

Bill: What are you? A broken record? I heard you the first TWO times you said that. My point Bill, is that it doesn't matter what I present to you. :(

I really didn't want to argue again. So, I won't.

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

VegForLife

09-10-1999, 06:16 PM

the thought I'm trying to convey is that True Christianity (Mormonism) has been around long before other Christian churches were even conceived. Whether you want to call that "orthodox" or not is simply a matter of semantics.
Well, if by "a matter of semantics" you mean "a choice to use words incorrectly," then yeah, I guess it is. (No offense intended there, it's just that I see the phrase "a matter of semantics" used far too often, as far as I'm concerned, because the meanings of the two words or phrases in question are just too different. Sort of a pet peeve thing going on there, I guess.)
Maybe I'm using the word wrong, but I think you get my point.
Yeah, I do. I'd just suggest you not think of Mormonism as "orthodox" Christianity. "The one, true way" is different from "orthodox."

Rich

09-10-1999, 06:17 PM

Why the contradiction? I'd say it's because both of those quotes are from the Journal of Discourses, which is *not* considered a source of LDS doctrine, for various reasons (such as misquotations, hearsay, etc.). We believe in the miraculous virgin birth of Christ, and there is only one God we have anything to do with. Sure, there are other Gods, but the only one who we worship is Elohim.

VegForLife

09-10-1999, 06:20 PM

I really didn't want to argue again. So, I won't.
I just called my bookie. He said that Vegas odds were running 16 to 1 in favor of the above statement being false.

Anybody willing to bet against?

Rich

09-10-1999, 06:39 PM

Rich wrote:

Yeah, I do. I'd just suggest you not think of Mormonism as "orthodox" Christianity. "The one, true way" is different from "orthodox."

Okay, I get the point. I won't think of Mormonism as "orthodox Christianity," but rather as "restored Christianity."

Monty

09-10-1999, 08:41 PM

ARG220, Member, posted a lie on 09-10-1999 at 05:59 PM, to wit:
Both you, and Monty have said that you don't see any contradictions in the Bible vs. BOM, and that you have both studied the Bible.

And as Adam himself asked me, I am pointing that out to him.

Adam: what I did say was in response you your asking how the Book of Mormon could be true with all its contradicitons; contradictions of which you yourself have no knowledge because you refuse to read the thing for yourself. I merely pointed out that the Bible also contains contradictions.

Let us assume that the Old and New Testaments are part of the one Bible. Then let's cruise on over to Exodus 20:7 which states:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Now Matthew 12:21 states:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Now, I'd say that "all manner of sin and blasphemy" would include that which was explicitly stated in Exodus as something for which the Lord would not hold someone guiltless.

Looks to me like a contradiction. But then I never said that either the Bible nor the Book of Mormon was without them.

You did, Adam. You also lied when you said that I said the Book of Mormon was without contradiction.

Now here's your chance to admit you lied recently. (See above.)

David B

09-10-1999, 08:48 PM

ARG, still not getting it, said:David, David. I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. You can't compare Mormons, and me, because I don't call myself Mormon. Hmm, did that make sense? Probabaly not.No, it didn't. You had said: "it doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked against them. It doesn't matter how many contradictions you show." See, now, Adam, this describes you. I don't care what book you use, I don't care what you think you meant. The fact of the matter is that you described yourself perfectly, and you still don't even realize it.

David B

09-10-1999, 08:53 PM

ARG, really not getting it, also said:As I said, it doesn't matter what evidence I provide. Both you, and Monty have said that you don't see any contradictions in the Bible vs. BOM, and that you have both studied the Bible. I can show you these things until I'm blue in the face, but until they are hidden in your heart, it won't make a difference.More self-description from Adam.

In other threads, people have shown you contradictions within the Bible. You ignore them or try to rationalize them away. People show you contradictions between the Bible and the real world. You ignore them.

To quote somebody you know well: "I can show you these things until I'm blue in the face, but it won't make a difference."

------------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford

09-10-1999, 09:22 PM

And now he's refusing to civilly discuss Mormonism at all with me in the thread I started called "ARG220 and Mormonism." I find it incredible that he continues to make the claim that Mormons don't or won't listen to him, and yet refuses to sit down and discuss the subject when it comes right down to it.

Monty

09-10-1999, 10:03 PM

Snark: you know, we really should lay off the kid for refusing to read the BofM. Heck, he refuses to read either stick! (Veiled reference to LDS terminology: "sticks" is the Bible and the Book of Mormon together.)

Since he refuse to read the whole Bible, why should any be amazed he'll not read anyone else's book?

09-10-1999, 10:46 PM

Monty, you're right. Let's just let the kid suck his thumb comfortably in his dark little closet, unaware that there is such a thing as the sunlight and a bigger picture.

smilingjaws

09-11-1999, 12:22 AM

Snarkberry
You are exactly right and that is my point
Just because one person says it so does not make it so!
That's why I posted! I simply don't know why it's so hard to understand. If someone claims to be part of the catholic (little c)Christian Church--and to believe about the same as the organized groups which are part of that church--then it does matter whether or not they accept you into that group! I am not trying to start a theological war. I am just trying to point out an obvious fact--that although the Mormon church claims to be part of the great body of Christian believers, few of those believers accept Mormons as equals.
Let me try another analogy. There are churches which call themselves Mormon. These groups are offshoots of the orginial Mormon church. In fact, they more closely adhere to the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young--they still practice polygamy. If I say, oh of course, Mormons still practice polygamy, Snarkberry, you will quickly correct me--these groups are not the "true" Mormon church--they practice things that the current leaders of the Mormon Church had stated will lead to excommunication. They do call themselves Mormons. If I, (as a non-mormon) chose to believe that all people who call themselves Mormons are Mormons, then I would be perfectly right in believing that Mormons still practice polygamy. Instead, I accept that they are not mainline Mormons, but instead are entirely different groups representing their own interpretation of the Mormon faith.
Maybe a kinder solution would be to adopt another term. Although it comes from a kinda wierd source--Madeline Murray O'Hair called Christians "Christers" Why can't the Mormon church adopt some term like that--to indicate that they do base their religion partly on Jesus Christ--but not entirely? It just would seem more honest, open, and forthright.

VegForLife

09-13-1999, 01:02 PM

Uh-oh, this looks like the next opportunity for Bill to apologize. . .

Rich

09-13-1999, 08:55 PM

Rich: Do I really apologize too much? I'm sorry, I'll try not to do that anymore.

:: :Ducking and running:::

09-13-1999, 08:57 PM

Oh my! Looks like my "ducking and running" didn't turn out quite the way I had phrased it....ROFLMBO!

VegForLife

09-14-1999, 10:26 AM

Hmm, sounds interesting. . . I'll have to try :Ducking and running simultaneously sometime, though I'll have to find a deserted track to try it out. . .

Seriously, Bill, yeah, I think you apologize too much, often for stuff for which no apology is necessary. But I suppose that's better than appearing to be callous and intentionally trying to hurt someone's feelings, I don't know. Maybe we should compare notes sometime and you can decide that the other way really *is* better. ;)

Rich

09-14-1999, 01:54 PM

Maybe I should try to inslut people from now on, I don't know.

You're mother wears combat boots!

<small>There! That felt good!</small>

09-14-1999, 02:24 PM

Now that's a first for me. I usually don't confuse "your" and "you're." I'm terribly sorry.

09-14-1999, 03:19 PM

Rich, part of the reason I apologize so much has to do with my concern over how people perceive me and my religion. I don't think there's a single person on this board who doesn't know that I believe in Mormonism. And inevitably, when I misbehave or insult someone or whatever, someone will say, "So THAT'S how Mormons treat other people." Never mind the fact that I don't represent a very large segment of the LDS population. To at least some people, I'm one of the few Mormons they will ever know, and although they shouldn't draw conclusions about Mormonism based solely on my behavior, this happens anyway.

I've seen it happen with Christians in general, too. Any time someone who is a Christian acts un-Christlike, there will usually be someone making the comment, "See? That's why I don't believe in Christianity, because they act like that."

People shouldn't judge a whole religion by the actions of one adherent, but the fact is, they do, so I have to be very careful in how I'm perceived, since I believe that my church is true and I would be doing it a disservice by misbehaving and having someone believe that ALL Mormons misbehave like me. See what I'm saying? So that's my rationale behind the excessive apologies.

(Of course, if I didn't misbehave in the first place, none of the apologizing would be necessary. But that's the way I am.)