With respect for your beliefs (which I do have, despite our occasional clashes), I do see a clear distinction between what Chalcedonian Christians believe and the LDS conception of God and Christ. I personally would welcome the opportunity to discuss that civilly in another thread, with you taking the lead in spelling out the LDS formulary from official church documents and your own understanding of it. Some of us can then provide the Nicene and Chalcedonian formularies and further refinements to them adopted by various denominations.
And I agree, in my experience most Christians are either Modalists or Adoptionists, with a few Protestants who know the difference being Nestorian without realizing it. Old heresies never die; they just put on different clothes. :dubious:
With all respect for your sincerely held beliefs, your post demonstrates my point about why LDS is considered non-Christian. All the major branches of Christianity, barring a few Orthodox, affirm the conclusions of Nicaea and the formula of Chalcedon; this was not an issue in the Reformation. To characterize these statements that have guided the Church’s understanding of God for almost 1,700 years as “nonsensical” is to step away from orthodoxy into the margins. The position taken by the Reorganized LDS Church also illustrates that this is not without controversy within your own tradition.
I concur with both you and Polycarp that in practice many Christians fall into one of the above mentioned heresies. Most churches don’t teach theology anymore because people are only interested in “the practical.” As noted previously, however, I don’t believe that holding heretical beliefs automatically prevents one from having a living, saving faith in Jesus Christ.
What about such movements as “sola scriptura”? Are they excluded as well?
BTW, I should have elaborated. I used “nonsensical” to refer to the homoousia in the resolution.
Polycarp, I don’t expect to be able to participate in the discussion you suggest, both because I’ve seen this discussed in the newsgroup soc.religion.mormon more times than I’d like to count without satisfactory conclusion, and becuase the remaining few days in my membership (combined with my current work schedule) likely wouldn’t permit a detailed discussion.
Well, technically the unorthodox Orthodox are no longer unorthodox. (Which has to be the least communicative sentence I’ve ever put together, but it is accurate.)
The Church of the East and of the Assyrians was the sole surviving relic of the Nestorian churches that used to be prevalent all across Central Asia. There are only about 170,000 of them, mostly in Iraq. The larger portion of that church has long since reunited with Rome as the Chaldean Rite. From recent information that I have not been able to substantiate, the remnant has this year reunited with the Chaldean Church as a Catholic Eastern Rite.
The five Oriental Orthodox Churches: Egyptian and Ethiopian Celts, Syrian Jacobites, Armenian Gregorians, and one of several Mar Thoma churches in India (the others are Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and independent Protestant, all using the traditional name), were separated from the Eastern Orthodox by their refusal to accept the Council of Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures in Christ. (I have a nice modern English translation of that accessible if anyone wants turgid fourth century Greek theological prose in modern English.) Rather than the diaphysite position held by all Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and virtually all Protestant groups, they adopted a miaphysite position – which is often erroneously described as monophysite, a heresy now extinct except for His4Ever (not a joke or putdown; we discussed theology on a thread on another board a while ago, and she actually is monophysite in her understanding of Christ). (Again I can get into what these terms mean if desired, but they’re differing definitions of how Jesus can simultaneously be God and man in one package.) However, discussions between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians and metropolitans over the past few years have arrived at a mutually acceptable understanding which is likely to lead to full communion and essential reunification between those two groups.
So to reiterate: the unorthodox Orthodox are no longer unorthodox.
You are generalizing now and speaking in the passive voice. You do not speak for all Protestant denominations or all religious conservatives. It is important to make that distinction in fairness to others who read here.
furt, I see what you are saying. I will try again:
The particular paragraph referred to in the policy statement is very general and talks about working with both other Christian groups and those outside the historic Christian church.
Breiner’s introduction and explanation of that particular paragraph in the policy statement says that it does not make a judgment as to whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are to be considered Christians. (I invision a “judge not” shrug.)
It’s only been in the last ten years or so that I began to realize that some Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. (I thought it was only fundamentalists that thought that, but I was mistaken.)
I’m not going to tell anyone who says they are a Christian that they are not. That’s not in my job description. But if you and Theologue and others do, that’s your business too.
Theologue, thanks for the time you’ve put in. I hope you have time to come back by.
I agree with you that the Holy Spirit is reliable and consistent and that it is human beings that make the errors in understanding. Other than the Scriptures, what helps you to be open and receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Polycarp, thank you for the informative update on the Eastern churches.
emarkp, “sola scriptura” or “Scripture alone” is the position (officially, at least) of most Protestants. Although they don’t see the creeds and councils as officially binding or inspired, they accept these two in particular as accurate statements about what the Bible teaches about the nature of God.
I don’t think I would be able to participate in such as thread as Polycarp suggested either. However, I would be interested if you could refer me to a website (preferably an article, not a message board) with a detailed, well-documented if not official, statement of LDS beliefs about the nature of God. I’d be particularly interested in a response to the assessments made by Walter Martin and the CRI.
Zoe, I have enjoyed talking with you too. The wife and the kid are out today, so I have a little time.
I do not claim to speak for everyone, but there are some terms and definitions that are widely accepted in my field. I do have a master’s degree in missiology, and “marginal” is the term used in different statistical assessments of world religions and Christian groupings, such as David Barrett’s massive World Christian Encyclopedia. Barrett and others try to classify different groups into meaningful categories.
Thanks for your questions about the Holy Spirit. I believe the first thing is to know the Scripture thoroughly; most of the things we need to know are there. (For example, a simplistic one at that, we never need to pray, “God, should I steal this?” because the written word already says, “Thou shalt not steal.” ) We should also learn about the Holy Spirit and how he acted in the early church.
Prayer is important. “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you” (James 4:8). Prayer should not just be one-way communication, listing all of our requests, but two-way, where we pause and listen to see if the Spirit is saying anything. How to hear his voice, how to separate it from the din of all that goes on around and inside us is very difficult to put into words. God does not speak nearly as much as we do, but we should learn to hear his voice. We should try to hear and obey in the small things first; once we get used to doing that, we will be more discerning and wiser to hear in the big things. Rigid guidelines are difficult to give, but when he does communicate, (1) it will not contradict the teachings of Scripture, and (2) often, it may be to do something we, in our self-interest, might not want to do. The discipline of fasting is useful, but from experience, I have found the answer often comes after the fast, not during.
