# Christianity 101 Questions from an Ex-Mormon **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2019, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932 "2019-04-23T12:53:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/81 "2019-04-26T01:44:55Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > … > I’m not sure what **AHunter3’s** particular Methodist church emphasised, but the official doctrine of the United Methodist Church [includes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church#Summary_of_basic_beliefs)… I always felt that there was a tension between the official beliefs of the Methodist Church (whatever they may have been) and what the folks coming to the churcn on Sundays actually believed, and that was the reason I finally ended up not feeling comfortable going there. I mean, for the most part they weren’t comfortable identifying clauses in the official belief structure that they _didn’t_ agree with. They just got evasive and changed the subject to something they were more comfortable with. I had a whole lot of respect for the preacher’s son when he said, to the rest of us in the youth group, “I don’t believe in life after death”. I myself reached the point where I could hero-worship Jesus of Nazareth for the things he had taught but could not view him as a God, or as a child of God in a sense different from how the rest of us are children of God. I could not believe he had been in any way “sent” or had “come down”, but instead could only relate to the dude as a person like the rest of us who had sought out wisdom and understanding, had taught and led, and had upset some people and been killed for it. I had no interest in an external God whose identity I did not participate in. I didn’t believe in life after death in the traditional sense either, although I cam e to believe that my individual self isn’t by any means the entirety of who I am. And other stuff. I had beliefs and viewpoints that weren’t mainstream Methodist and to my way of thinking if we weren’t going to compare notes and share that stuff, what was the point of going to church? I could find other people to hang out with if I just needed a feeling of belonging and connection. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/82 "2019-04-26T03:56:52Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Note that the idea of “[fallen angels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel)” (and a/the Satan being part thereof) is not Biblical. Most of that folklore comes from the _Book of Enoch_. Then the Bible contains numerous passages that are not “Biblical.” “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12-15). “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job 1:6). “And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:17, 18). “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:3, 4, 7-9 ). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/83 "2019-04-26T06:30:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Mainstream Christian belief is that nothing apart from the death and resurrection of Jesus is necessary for anyone’s salvation. > Regards, > Shodan [Not true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide). This is certainly NOT the case with either the Catholic or Orthodox churches, and I can’t imagine anyone who wouldn’t consider either of those “mainstream Christians”. I don’t even think all Protestant denominations follow this. ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/84 "2019-04-26T06:57:30Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > You were mocking incorrectly. Catholics do not believe in Transducianism (the belief that the soul is a natural phenomenon created via the parents.) though many Lutherans do. Catholics are in fact creationists who believe the soul is created by God at conception. This was expounded by Pius XII in 1950 in his encyclical Humani Generis. Original sin is inherited from the parents as a contagion rather than genetic condition. This actually makes some sense since Mary was conceived immaculately. If original sin were ‘genetic’ how could she have been preserved from it? Thanks for the info! So Holy Virgin Mary non only did conceive immaculately, she was conceived herself immaculately in order to be able to do so? I sense a problem with recursivity there, but perhaps I am understanding the meaning of \*conceived \*wrongly. So according to Catholics the human soul gets original sin via contagion from the parents, but then how could she remain sin-less? And, accepting the premise that this was so for the sake of the argument, what about Jesus himself? How could he avoid getting the original sin from his mother’s side according to the different doctrines? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/85 "2019-04-26T07:17:26Z")
In order: Not quite. The “point” of the Immaculate Conception is that, by being created special on the same blank-slate state as Adam and Eve, Mary was able to retake their original choice without the inherited bias. She wasn’t conceived immaculately so she wouldn’t pass original sin to Baby Jesse, but so she’d be able to choose on an “equal ground” basis. Her response to the angel’s “you’re gonna have a baby” was straightforward, with no temptation to play it coy or to tweak the angel’s nose. She didn’t play word games, she didn’t troll. Note that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was pushed heavily by the Spanish, a culture which prides itself on both coyness (well, people from the South, us Northerners are too thick-headed for those games) and trolling. Our basic reaction if we’d met that angel would have been somewhere between “you and what flaming-sword carrying army?”, “oh, I don’t know… _fluttering lashes_” and “yeah, no. Maybe? Explain that again willya”. It’s a miracle. Oh, and a mystery (the RCC really likes those, specially when it comes to Mariology). It’s one of those things we’re supposed to accept but not to understand; it’s perfectly fine if it doesn’t make total sense. The answer depends on the different doctrines. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/86 "2019-04-26T07:25:53Z")
I generally stop listening to someone when their religion includes understanding who is going to hell. I read once that righteousness was not subject to judgement by man. I am a man, so I figure that includes me. Since I also read that “None are righteous, no not one.” I pretty much don’t count on that for a break. Judgement seems to me to be a perilous thing to engage in. Something about as you have judged, so shall you be judged. So, I am left with the possibility (or rather assurance) that the way I treat the “least of His children” might have some relevance. So, I try not to spend a lot of time with mean, hurtful, hateful people because . . . well, they are mean, and hurtful, and hateful, and I don’t like that. I try really hard not to be mean and hurtful, and hateful myself, on the off chance that some particular person is “the least guy” I heard about. I also heard about a guy who admitted to the Lord Himself “I did not know You!” and the Lord cut him some slack because he gave a hungry guy food, and a thirsty guy water, and went to visit a guy in jail. I figure, falling short of the perfect example of God is pretty much the best I can hope for. But trying to point that way and failing means I need to be forgiven. I guess I will have to count on the infinite love of the Lord. It’s not my religion. It’s my faith. I do try to keep an eye out for that guy, though. I mean, can you imagine being at the Throne of God, and have Him ask you “Where is that sinner I sent to you for comfort?” And you have to tell Him, “Oh, I told that guy to go to hell.” Tris ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/87 "2019-04-26T08:12:13Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > I generally stop listening to someone when their religion includes understanding who is going to hell. I read once that righteousness was not subject to judgement by man. I am a man, so I figure that includes me. Since I also read that “None are righteous, no not one.” I pretty much don’t count on that for a break. Judgement seems to me to be a perilous thing to engage in. Something about as you have judged, so shall you be judged. > > So, I am left with the possibility (or rather assurance) that the way I treat the “least of His children” might have some relevance. So, I try not to spend a lot of time with mean, hurtful, hateful people because . . . well, they are mean, and hurtful, and hateful, and I don’t like that. I try really hard not to be mean and hurtful, and hateful myself, on the off chance that some particular person is “the least guy” I heard about. > > I also heard about a guy who admitted to the Lord Himself “I did not know You!” and the Lord cut him some slack because he gave a hungry guy food, and a thirsty guy water, and went to visit a guy in jail. > > I figure, falling short of the perfect example of God is pretty much the best I can hope for. But trying to point that way and failing means I need to be forgiven. I guess I will have to count on the infinite love of the Lord. It’s not my religion. It’s my faith. > > I do try to keep an eye out for that guy, though. I mean, can you imagine being at the Throne of God, and have Him ask you “Where is that sinner I sent to you for comfort?” And you have to tell Him, “Oh, I told that guy to go to hell.” > > Tris 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ — Matthew 7:21-23, New International Version ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/88 "2019-04-26T08:47:15Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > In order: > Not quite. The “point” of the Immaculate Conception is that, by being created special on the same blank-slate state as Adam and Eve, Mary was able to retake their original choice without the inherited bias. She wasn’t conceived immaculately so she wouldn’t pass original sin to Baby Jesse, but so she’d be able to choose on an “equal ground” basis. […] > > It’s a miracle. Oh, and a mystery (the RCC really likes those, specially when it comes to Mariology). It’s one of those things we’re supposed to accept but not to understand; it’s perfectly fine if it doesn’t make total sense. > > The answer depends on the different doctrines. No, I do not understand it, but it is OK. Well, then there only remains for me to take note and keep on wondering why people take this subtleties so seriously. What strikes me as interesting is the difference in attitude concerning religious matters between Americans and Europeans. Another kind of mistery. Thank you very much for your answer, but today it is me who is busy, I must move on. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/89 "2019-04-26T11:19:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sort of a nitpick - not believing in the Trinity is not exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned rejecting the Holy Spirit. Rejecting the Holy Spirit is, I believe, what Jesus was talking about when He mentioned that The Spirit is what calls us to salvation. > > > [@Matthew 12:30-32](#): > > > > Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, any sin and blasphemy can be forgiven. But blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. > > Obviously people like Abraham and OT figures knew nothing about the Trinitarian formula, but they were saved. > > The unforgivable sin is to reject salvation and the forgiveness of sin. I think even Athanasius would agree with that, and his creed isn’t IMO talking about the same thing. Interesting to see another view from what I grew up with. One Mormon view is that even stating you don’t believe in God after having received the gift of the Holy Ghost (which all Mormons receive after baptism) is the unpardonable sin. The only mitigating factor for Peter denying Christ after the crucifixion was that he had not received the Holy Ghost. Otherwise it would have been unforgivable. That would mean that me, as an ex-Mormon would be destined for Outer Darkness, if Mormonism is actually true. The good news for everyone else in the thread, is that no one else has been baptized as Mormons, so you won’t be joining me in avery uncomfortable place if Mormonism winds up being the only true church. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > It’s true some English speaking Protestants treat certain English translations like King James as themselves divinely inspired but that’s not Christianity as a whole. > > Which would be in contrast to Mormon writings which were, obviously, originally in English though it’s now a quite international faith. And while language isn’t directly brought up in the question but is another aspect of how someone brought up a Mormon would know it wasn’t necessarily like other nominally Christian sects but might not realize how different the view of things is. I don’t see how language is an issue here. Actually most Mormons do not study the Bible carefully. This comes from having modern prophets who interpret the meaning of the Bible. The Bible isn’t taught as a standalone subject but rather the lessons are built around what the modern prophets has said about the verses. The Book of Mormon and other exclusively Mormon scriptures are often given more weight. > [@](#): > > As other Catholics noted, growing up Catholic, after school religious instruction etc, that’s an unusual set of questions, none of them things I remember being emphasized and a strange list for _the_ pressing questions of what Christianity is about. And which I guess might be a combination of both the Taiwanese (~5% Christian country, not sub-1% like Japan but far from Christian plurality South Korea) kids’ question and the Mormon conduit. Also not sure if there’s a good way to communicate the core beliefs of any religion taking _too_ much care to insure everyone knows their ‘lack of interest’ (as in ‘absolute rejection’) in the validity. That can tend to end up focusing on trivialities. Someone is missing the point of this thread. The lesson was not a comprehensive course on Christianity nor was it discussing its core beliefs. It was a lesson on Easter, which means that it specificalydiscussed the resurrection. The questions are not strange for someone who was a Mormon, and if they are considered strange by people, that is simply an indication that non-Mormons do not understand Mormonism any better than Mormons understand other Christians. Mormons have a doctrine of the Plan of Salvation, which starts off with the pre-existence; including the creation of the spirits, Satan, Jesus, and the Great War; then talks about the current existence here on Earth and then what happens after people die and the Second Coming. This is the core of Mormonism and heavily emphasized. I taught it in Sunday school as well as on my LDS mission to Japan. [![](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation_(Latter_Day_Saints)#/media/File:Plan_of_Salvation.jpg) ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation_(Latter_Day_Saints)#/media/File:Plan_of_Salvation.jpg) When people compare cultures or religions they start with what they know about their own culture or religion. If a non-Mormon were to ask questions to a Mormon, I would expect that they would questions which Mormons would not consider important. > [@senoy](#): > > To get to the Trinity, it’s important to note that while Joseph Smith was likely well-read for the time, he was in essence a frontier conman. As such, his theology and thus the theology of the LDS church is largely what you would expect a frontier conman to come up with. Understanding the hypostatic union is a philosopher’s game (most language to describe it is neo-Platonic in origin) and most Christians don’t get it and Smith definitely didn’t, so he went with simplicity when crafting his religion. It’s late here, so I don’t want to get to far down a Trinity rabbit hole, but I’ll try and post a run down tomorrow. The essence is that they are three distinct persons of a single nature, where those terms have very specific definitions. As promised, I’m back to discuss this in a little more detail. Joseph Smith’s theology evolved considerable between when he produced the Book of Mormon and when he died, going through many changes. One of these changes involved the godhood. The Book of Mormon, written prior to the founding of the Church, was apparently written with a modal view of God. > [@The Book of Mosiah Chapter 15](#): > > 1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. > 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— > 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— > 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. > Parts of the Book of Mormon needed to be rewritten in order to match later theology. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/90 "2019-04-26T12:00:33Z")
> [@Pardel-Lux](#): > > Thanks for the info! So Holy Virgin Mary non only did conceive immaculately, she was conceived herself immaculately in order to be able to do so? I sense a problem with recursivity there, but perhaps I am understanding the meaning of \*conceived \*wrongly. I may be wrong, but is it possible you are conflating the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth? Mary was conceived in the ordinary way, but was free from original sin. That is what “Immaculate Conception” means. Jesus was not conceived in the usual way, and did not have a biological father. That’s virgin birth, not immaculate conception. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/91 "2019-04-26T12:40:05Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Wow! It seems to me that you need to read something about the actual history of Christianity, because you don’t seem to know much about it. Seriously? Seriously??? There were _two_ major branches of Christianity. Not one, _two_ major ones. And a whole lot of lesser ones. Do you know anything about the Arians that I cited? That persisted until the 8th century and then the idea got revived later on? And that’s one of many alternate Christian groups that existed before the Reformation. [The Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East) (Nestorians) continues today in several sects, several of which are not in communion with either the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox churches. If you don’t understand how divided Christianity has been _its entire existence_, you are not in a position to question other people’s knowledge. I mean seriously??? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/92 "2019-04-26T12:52:28Z")
[Moderating] I think this thread has probably gotten to a point where it’s a better fit for GD than GQ. Moving. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/93 "2019-04-26T13:22:02Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > I thought that the whole concept of heaven and hell is no longer supported by the modern church, at least the Anglican part of it. Priests don’t stand in pulpits telling the congregation that they are all sinners and destined for the fiery pit. > > The early leaders invented Satan as the opposite of God; once again he/she is no longer a feature of modern theology. Neither of the above is true. Mainstream Christian denominations all hold that there is such a thing as hell and such a thing as heaven. Different denominations (and individuals) have differing emphases and interpretations about those things but the concept is alive and well. There is a trend in Episcopalianism toward liberalism, but there are very conservative movements in other churches. Not sure what you mean by modern theology. Theology is generally rather resistant to change, compared to politics and culture, since it tends to be formulated by old bureaucrats after decades of discussion and then carefully written down in special books. There have been radical theologies proposed throughout the entire timeline of Christian history – along with mighty struggles to suppress them. Satan was not ‘invented’ by early Christians, more like inherited from Judaism, and influenced by other religions of that time and place including Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc., as well as the teachings of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/94 "2019-04-26T13:35:47Z")
I’m getting the feeling that the OP is trying to understand Christian doctrine as if it was analogous to Mormonism. But Mormonism is a wholly invented, 19th century sect with a single originator, which only touches other monotheistic religions in rather small ways, in my understanding. Christianity is vast, has a 2000 year history, thousands of branches, and is based upon another religion which goes back to the Bronze Age. Maybe the discussion could be narrowed down? ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/95 "2019-04-26T14:13:19Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > 1. I don’t see how language is an issue here. Actually most Mormons do not study the Bible carefully. > > 2. The lesson was not a comprehensive course on Christianity nor was it discussing its core beliefs. It was a lesson on Easter, which means that it specificalydiscussed the resurrection. The questions are not strange for someone who was a Mormon, and if they are considered strange by people, that is simply an indication that non-Mormons do not understand Mormonism any better than Mormons understand other Christians. 1. No it wasn’t in your original post. But I was responding to somebody who asked wrt to ‘where does Satan come’ whether a particular point was from ‘the English translation of the Bible’, to which I just answered English has no special position in Christianity in general. Whereas in Mormonism English is the original language, though that’s not 100% relevant to what you originally asked either. 2. I think this is one of the points though. Since you’re ex-Mormon I hope it’s not impolite to say it’s sketchy whether LDS is really, as opposed to politely called, a Christian sect. The view not only of specific doctrines but the whole role of doctrine and how it evolves seems pretty different than Catholicism, Orthodox or old line Protestant sects (which are collectively a big majority of world Christians though less conventional P’s are growing faster). I’m not sure a Mormon is really that well positioned to explain about Christianity based on recollection of their own religious schooling. Though obviously a Mormon who has studied Christianity more broadly could be the best in the world at it. The other point relates to ‘ex’. Like I said, if a teacher in the West in the past or maybe very conservative Christian part of the US now tried to teach Islam but was oh-so-careful not to seem in any way to endorse any of its beliefs in any way, they could easily end up focusing on trivialities compared to what believers view is important about the religion. I think this is also now a factor in post/ex-Christian Western teachers’ teaching about Christianity. IMO you have to make the leap of putting yourself in the hypothetical the position of believer to understand any religion. And again modern ‘liberal’ US teachers have no qualms about doing that in teaching non-Christian religions in a secular setting (despite occasional kerfuffles about it again generally in conservative areas and/or from conservative media cherry picking extreme cases). Christianity is a stickier topic for post-Christian Westerners. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/96 "2019-04-26T21:52:20Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Conservative Catholic answering: > > 1. Where do souls/spirits come from? > > God’s creates them at conception. > > 1. Where does Satan come from? > > He is Lucifer, the angel that rebelled against God. > > 1. \*\*After a person died, what happens to them while waiting for the resurrection? > > Yo go to Heaven, Prugatory,or Hell, immediately. > \*\* > 4. Does everyone get resurrected at the Second Coming? When are people judged? > > Everyoone is judged publicly, pnly the rigtheous live on the New World. > > 1. What sort of people go to hell, and is it forever? > > ¨People who die in a state of mortal sin. For non-Catholics too, but God decided on your specific circumstances. (Bolding mine). This very question was a matter of some discussion and concern in the 14th century; did the souls of the dead see God (an experience they called “the Beatific Vision”) immediately, or only after the Second Coming? [Pope John XXIII thought the Beatific Vision was delayed until Judgement Day.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision#Pope_John_XXII_and_the_Beatific_Vision_controversy) This poked the hornet’s nest, because it called into question the efficacy of praying to saints, or even the Virgin, for intervention; if they don’t see God before you do, then your what’s the point of asking them to put in a word with the Big Guy for you? Why then waste your florins endowing masses for your soul to be sung by the monastery down the road? Given that such foundations were not-insignificant portion of some orders’ revenues, the question was not simply an abstruse dispute of only theoretical relevance. ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/97 "2019-04-26T22:32:13Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > I may be wrong, but is it possible you are conflating the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth? > > Mary was conceived in the ordinary way, but was free from original sin. That is what “Immaculate Conception” means. > > Jesus was not conceived in the usual way, and did not have a biological father. That’s virgin birth, not immaculate conception. Ah, so that would explain my confusion. I got my concepts wrong. That seems to make sense, if you accept the premises. May I ask you to what degree you accept those premises? From 0 to 100%, how much would you say you believe those description of events, if your believe is measurable in numbers? Not to hyde my point of view: I appreciate the attempt at logical coherence and terminological clarity, but I believe your explanation is not true at all. I hope this does not offend you and this does not come across as rude, I am sincerely curious: I would like to know if you think those dogmas are to be believed literally. If your answer is yes I would also be interested in what you think of people like me who do not believe them. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/98 "2019-04-26T22:45:56Z")
> [@Pardel-Lux](#): > > Ah, so that would explain my confusion. I got my concepts wrong. That seems to make sense, if you accept the premises. > May I ask you to what degree you accept those premises? From 0 to 100%, how much would you say you believe those description of events, if your believe is measurable in numbers? Not to hyde my point of view: I appreciate the attempt at logical coherence and terminological clarity, but I believe your explanation is not true at all. I hope this does not offend you and this does not come across as rude, I am sincerely curious: I would like to know if you think those dogmas are to be believed literally. If your answer is yes I would also be interested in what you think of people like me who do not believe them. Well, I haven’t explained anything, other than (hopefully) clearing up a misunderstanding about the meaning of certain terms. As to what degree I accept these premises, I am a practicing Catholic. I am not sure my belief in either the virgin birth of Jesus or the Immaculate Conception is numerically quantifiable. I accept the teaching authority of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches us that virgin birth and the Immaculate Conception are indeed to to be understood as literally true. As to what I think of people who don’t believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church, I don’t think much about that at all. I certainly don’t believe they’re condemned to Hell or anything like that. Actually, I tend, like the 14th-century English mystic Julian of Norwich, towards a belief in universal salvation (a belief which is, while not endorsed by the Catholic Church, not condemned either). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/99 "2019-04-27T03:06:05Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Then the Bible contains numerous passages that are not “Biblical.” > > “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12-15). > > “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job 1:6). > > “And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:17, 18). > > “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:3, 4, 7-9 ). The claim for _Enoch_ is not that Isaiah’s (and others’) passages are not biblical, but that references to and ideas about “Lucifer” and “Satan” have undergone changes through time. Lucifer is simply a Latin word meaning “bearer of light” and many scholars regard the passage in _Isaiah_ 14 to be a reference to an actual earthly prince of the time the passage in Isaiah was written whom Isaiah was claiming would fall from grace. The Satan (adversary) of _Job_ is regarded as a literary character portraying a member of God’s court who presents an argument in regard to a specific theological point to be argued through the rest of the book. The author of the _Book of Enoch_ took these literary allusions and built upon them to portray a genuine opponent of God with (in Enoch’s view) a genuine fallen angel who works to undermine humanity. Based on Enoch’s interpretation the authors of _Luke_ and _Revelation_ used that literary character to make their own points regarding human sin. Certainly, at the time of Jesus, the (by then 200+ year old) book was being quoted and the person of the evil being was treated as genuine being. However, the ideas surrounding Lucifer/Satan that appear in _Luke_ and _Peter_ and the highly metaphorical _Revelation_ were not “biblical” in the sense of originating from the Bible since the references in the later books originated and were developed outside biblical books. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932/100 "2019-04-27T05:11:32Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > [Not true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide). This is certainly NOT the case with either the Catholic or Orthodox churches, and I can’t imagine anyone who wouldn’t consider either of those “mainstream Christians”. > > I don’t even think all Protestant denominations follow this. Agreed. The one Christian principle that I think is common to all denominations is the divinity of Jesus. Note that I’m not saying there aren’t individuals who consider themselves Christians but who eschew the notion of the divine nature of Jesus, but I don’t think there are entire denominations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-101-questions-from-an-ex-mormon/832932.md?page=6)