Hee. Yeah, this.
Just for the record, I’m not an Evangelical. I’m a Catholic convert, and I do NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. I DO believe in the Deuterocanonical books, and I also believe in Sacred Tradition.
I’ve got MANY questions regarding the Mormon religion, but obviously this isn’t the place for discussion. My queries have to do with the contradiction of the Mormon “Jesus.” Apparently my tripping points are considered invalid in this forum because I have ANY faith, based upon the assumption that if I’m gullible enough to accept one fairy tale, a second fairy tale should be no problem.
My summation is this: no, Mormons are not Christian, and Mormons do not believe in the New Testament Jesus.
~VOW
No, but even they don’t entirely agree with each otheron what’s part of Biblical canon.
Here’s a nice link to the many books that didn’t make the traditional bible for whatever reason. I really don’t need some committee of wackos deciding which books are worthy of being in their bible and declaring the rest unworthy. I put all religious writings in the same category. Great stories, a good read, but historically questionable.
I’m sure those “wackos” care as much about your opinion on scripture as you care about theirs. Since they weigh the value of scripture differently than you do, they have an interest in determining which writings are more than great stories and good reads.
I’ve never met a Mormon who didn’t believe in the New Testament Jesus. Their understanding of Jesus is based on a pretty reasonable interpretation of the New Testament. They don’t accept the creeds because they believe the creeds are in conflict with the New Testament. The New Testament seems to imply pretty strongly that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three entities. Mormons disagree with mainstream Christians on topics such as what was Jesus doing before the New Testament and what has he been up to since then.
I can understand calling them non-Christian because they reject the creeds. I don’t agree, but I understand. You will never find a believing Mormon who rejects the New Testament description of Jesus.
My bad for assuming you were an Evangelical. In my experience Catholics are usually less het up about these kinds of issues, which is understandable as they are the New York Yankees of religions and don’t usually pay too much attention to the Kansas City Royals.
If you want to discuss Mormonism, there are plenty of us both for and against but it seems a bit hypocritical to want only a critical assessment of Mormonism’s flaws while ignoring Catholicism’s absurdities. And frankly, I find your critiques thus far to be … hard to understand and illogical.
And finally, you keep repeating that Mormons don’t believe in New Testament Jesus and thus aren’t Christians, but you’ve failed to make a case for this assertion.
After reading that article, it appears that they are basing their facts on a few people who may or may not have knowledge of what they speak. I don’t doubt the church as assets. Tons of assets in fact. But I doubt any one person could provide you much of a glimpse of that total.
I question a few things. The .7 percent for welfare is misleading. As is the payment of Stipends from Church funds. IIRC, any stipend, etc. is paid from the profits of the Church investments. Sure, those investments probably came from Church funds, or endowments, whatever, but tithing monies are used, as the members are told, for the Lord’s work. (which is not totally defined)
The welfare reference is totally misleading. First of all, once a month, members donate to other members welfare through a Fast Offering. That money remains local, and helps members in need with payment of water bills, rent, even, as I’ve seen, a new clothes dryer for one family. That money never makes it to Salt Lake City nor is it counted in the church assets. The church has an expanded welfare system. Any member that experiences hard times is eligible to shop at the Bishop’s Storehouse. That storehouse is a small supermarket, featuring everything from diapers, to fresh eggs, to roast beef, fresh fruit and vegetables, you name it. Not one cent is charged to the member for that shopping trip. ANd it goes on as long as the member and/or his family need assistance. I assume there would be a point where the member would be counseled if it was being abused, but I’ve never seen it.
I’ve worked several days in the tuna cannery when it was in San Diego, canning tuna for church (storehouse) distribution. That is no longer done as they buy tuna for distribution. Behind the Bishops Storehouse are three large silos. That wheat comes from church owned farms, worked (there are a few paid workers managing it I’m sure) by members and GIVEN to third world countries - free of charge. The story goes that the church got upset with the high price of shipping the wheat to those countries, that they bought a fleet of ships to ship it. I assume the crew of those ships are paid as well. That may or may not be the case anymore. I haven’t been to the storehouse in years. We all used to work there one day every 3 months.
My point is that I question the .7 percent figure. It seems very low compared to the vastness of the church welfare system, and it doesn’t include funds that are retained at the ward level.
Yes, as a past member, I’ve worked at the storehouse, the tuna cannery, the tomato cannery, and the egg ranch. Some of those are no longer in my area though, (having been sold or moved) my point being the labor is done by members who are not compensated for it. The value of that labor isn’t figured in the welfare expenditures by the church.
My oops, so to clarify: Mormons DO believe in the New Testament Jesus. Perhaps I should have extended my explanation by saying, “Mormons don’t believe in the New Testament Jesus ALONE.”
But it doesn’t end there. They also believe in the New World Jesus, too.
BOM and the New Testament have the same weight of authority.
GAH, this is beginning to sound like the age-old battle of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
And Morganstern, I don’t know how many of those “forgotten” books of the Bible include the Deuterocanonical books that are part of the Catholic canon, but were tossed by Luther. If you wish to understand why ALL of the so-called “lost gospels” weren’t stamped with the official okey-dokie, then you need to study the history of the Christian faith, and how the Early Church Fathers determined which books would be included in the canon.
~VOW
Oh I can sum that up for you in a sentence or two. “These books support the idea of a hierarchical orthodoxy that can act as a bridge between god and man; keep them. These books advocate for a purely individual religious experience with personal revelation; toss them.”
Yeah, that’s fair – I agree with this, while I did not agree with the way you phrased it earlier.
Though I’m not sure why this should bother you quite as much as it seems to, especially since NewWorld!Jesus taught pretty much exactly what NewTestament!Jesus did (as other people have pointed out, it was basically plagarized from Matthew).
It seems to me like if a person happened to believe in the New Testament, but also very very fervently believed that Jesus owned a dog. It might not be doctrinally correct, and maybe a bit disturbing, to put Jesus’ putative dog-ownership up there with all of Jesus’s other qualities, but I don’t think it would make that person not Christian.
But to Mormons, New World Jesus is Old World Jesus. Or do you think there is a 4th member of the Mormon godhead (their word for trinity)? They believe Jesus suffered in Gethsemane, was convicted, was crucified, died, ministered to spirits in prison (their word for purgatory), and was resurrected. After resurrection he had a tangible body that the disciples could touch, and yet he was able to magically appear and disappear. He appeared to a few of his favorite women, to the apostles a few times, to a couple of guys on the road, to a crowd of 500 people, and to some undefined “other sheep who are not of this fold.” Then he ascended into heaven. Since then, he appeared to Saul/Paul and to Stephen.
Mormons interpret the “other sheep” to be a group of White Israelite Native Americans. It’s been a while since I’ve been to Mormon sunday school, but IIRC this visit was supposedly before he ascended into heaven. So he apparently takes advantage of the different time zones to go back and forth between the Old World and the New. And then in addition to appearing to Paul and Stephen, they believe he appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
Again, nowhere in LDS theology is New World Jesus a different person from Old World Jesus. International travel doesn’t seem to be difficult for a god who can suddenly appear in a room, disappear in an inn, and float up into heaven.
I dunno. With his long beard and Palestinian passport, Jesus was definitely on the Do Not Fly list.
I’ll have to give it to you, you have a very different way of asking questions. One which seems indistinguishable from the spaghetti method of attack, by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
However, if you are interested in a discussion, rather than a diatribe, it would be helpful if you define some of your beliefs so we can talk a common language. You say that you do not believe in a literal interpretation of the entire bible. What do you believe or not, and how is that decided?
Based on what exactly? One or two scriptures in the New Testament? Let me know if the rules allow gachas based on isolated verses, I can play that game all day.
What are you doing, being all reasonable in a thread? We may have to take your ExMormon Card back.
Alternatively, they can give me the money and I’ll assure them that it will be for the Lord’s work. I’ll even not cross my fingers behind my back.
This is one reason that accountability would be a good idea. If the church were actually using the tithing money for the Lord’s work then it wouldn’t matter if people could see the figures, right?
One the of things which shocked my mother was when my grown nephew needed assistance when he became sick and the bishop gave him such a hard time, and had wanted his mother (with no money) or his other relatives (such as my mother) to help before the church would allow the nephew to receive church assistance. There was a thread several years ago about a Mormon bishop who refuses assistance to someone who was taking care of her sister’s (?) kids. IIRC, the sister and her kids were Mormon, but the aunt wasn’t active. The bishop refused and the linked article quoted him as saying that he gets lots of requests for assistance and has to reject a substantial percentage of them.
I’m still not seeing why religious beliefs are so funny when they aren’t your beliefs, or am I missing something?
Are the rules that all religions should be mocked, or just the Mormon.
Can I tell some really funny things about the inconsistencies in the New Testimony?
I’m an ex-Mormon atheist, and believe it’s all made up. It seems pretty funny to hear people fight over something like this.
Dammit, I worked hard for that card. Can I have it back if I mention that Joseph Smith bought a 14-year-old sex slave by promising her family an extra nice afterlife?
:: Checks rules ::
OK, but only since this off topic. You wouldn’t have gotten any bonus points if the thread had been about Mormon ideas of marriage, or why Prop 8 was bitch’en.
I’m an atheist who’s long wondered why LDS are considered a “weird” religion by “mainstream” Christians.
They work hard, they care about their families, I like finding out that new neighbors are Mormons - I think that’s a good summary of what religion is converging to.
I think many mainstream devout believers have internalized the notion that no one can prove their pretty much prehistoric religion wrong.
And are uneasy with the idea that Americans who are protected by the same First Amendment can simply make things up.
And if that’s true, who can say that ALL religion isn’t made up?
Confession: I am officially an ordained minister in the Church of the Subgenius (look it up).
We do not ask for tax-exempt status: OUR PROPHETS WANT PROFITS!
I officially suggested to the Church Founder (Rev Ivan Stang) that we, the Subgenii, accept that the LDS, the Mormons, are the real Jews ( Mormons = Lost Tribes of Israel – talk amongest yourselves)
But that Subgenii are the Real Mormons…
Prove me wrong
All joking aside, I’m not sure that I understand why you and your hilarious sister see the idea of Jesus going to the Americas as such a big deal. That Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of the Church, sure, that should be huge. The Mormon concept of eternal progression where each person can become a god or goddess, and that God the Father used to be a man, like us. (Well, like 50% of us.) That only Mormons can get into the highest levels of heaven. Another biggie. Does the Eucharist become the body of Christ or is the sacrament meeting still holy even though Mormons use non-changing Wonder Bread?
There are lots of schisms within Christianity, some greater and some lesser, but even as an atheist ex-Mormon, I don’t understand why that particular point should be mocked while holding on dear to the transubstantiation or the jillion other things.
Especially, since others have pointed out, the Christ of Third Nephi was lifted directly from the KJV Mathew, mistaken translations and all.
Nope, not gonna bite. This isn’t GD.
I’ve gotten entangled with atheists in the past, and the ones I’ve encountered seem to think they are more evolved then we poor deluded theists.
I DO understand how a TBM who comes to the conclusion that the Mormon Church is a fraud and that Joseph Smith was a con man can be left with the belief that there can be no God. I find that incredibly sad, but I’ve been told to save my sympathy.
~VOW
Please tell me this is true. I want to drop it inappropriately into conversations if so.