South Park Mormons

[dangermom]

Emarkp,i’m not going to argue the points because I don’t care at all about the virtues of two groups that worship imaginary beings. Suffice it to say that other Christian sects find the differences betweren themselves and the LDS to be sginifcant.

Nobody’s arguing with that; we’re proud of the fact. If we weren’t different, we’d all go off and be nice quiet Methodists. But your list was inaccurate and full of mistakes–you could at least have found one with a true accounting of the differences.

As for Hebraisms, they go much deeper than you seem to realize–it does take some reading to figure out, since we who don’t know Hebrew from Inuit tend to automatically dismiss the weird constructions of the BoM. Perhaps you should look up some papers by John Tvedtnes; it’s a specialty of his. Joseph Smith did indeed use the tone of the KJV for the BoM, but the BoM is far more Hebraic in language than the KJV, which is widely acknowledged. The article you cite doesn’t do more than scratch at the surface.

[dangermom]

Woohoo! In my wanderings, I have just found an online copy of a paper I’ve wanted to read for some time. "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, is a paper by Evangelicals, addressed to other Evangelicals, pointing out that their anti-Mormon research has fallen far behind the times, and they’ve got to get going with some responsible anti writing. Great stuff; many LDS people were very happy to finally see someone try to give us an actual challenge to our scholarship instead of the same tired old lies. Enjoy, all! The paper.

[occ]

*Originally posted by Monty *
**Guess what posting ignorant & incorrect assertions as though they’re fact reflect on you? **

Yeah, because there’s never been any argument over what constitutes “Christianity”. It’s a well-defined, monolithic entity with a clear organizational hierarchy, and standardized beliefs.

Monty, why do you take such offense whenever anyone broaches the subject of Mormonism?

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by aurelian *
Wow. I’m being earnest here, how do you do that? How is it possible to be human and not have ‘moral problems’? Saints have had crises of faith, popes have contradicted, even fought each other…

Most people go through some crisis of faith, and some saints don’t deserve the title. I’d argue that the warring popes weren’t very good popes, etc. I was making no claim that missionaries are perfect. Far from it. However, as ambassadors of the church (and indeed, of Christ) they lead lives of strict moral purity. They work 6.5 days a week teaching people about Christ (the other 0.5 day is for laundry, etc.) and frankly don’t have much time to get into trouble. That isn’t to say they never make mistakes, but serious mistakes result in serious consequences.

By moral problems I mean actively engaging in moral transgression. But indeed, if someone is indeed going through a crisis of faith, he should not be serving as a missionary. If he can’t control his actions within a certain range, he shouldn’t be serving as a missionary.

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by gobear *
Emarkp,i’m not going to argue the points because I don’t care at all about the virtues of two groups that worship imaginary beings. Suffice it to say that other Christian sects find the differences betweren themselves and the LDS to be sginifcant.

Yes, and some Christian sects find the differences between themselves and other Christian sects to be significant.

Are the Abyssinian and Coptic Christians not Christian because the rejected the council of Chalcedon (451 AD)? How about Greek Orthodoxy? They disagreed in 1054.

When you start flinging the dung around the room, don’t act surprised when someone hoses it off. It’s a poor argument that must be defended by “I don’t want to discuss it further.”

[Monty]

*Originally posted by occ *
Yeah, because there’s never been any argument over what constitutes “Christianity”. It’s a well-defined, monolithic entity with a clear organizational hierarchy, and standardized beliefs.

Never said it was a well-defined monolithic entity.

Monty, why do you take such offense whenever anyone broaches the subject of Mormonism?

I take offense when people make ignorant and false accusations, just like you did right here. I have taken offense when people have persistently made false statements about Islam and Buddhism also. At the moment, your attention is focused on my postings regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because, in case you missed the thread title, this thread is discussing that organization.

Thank you for playing. Too bad you’re not entertaining.

[gobear]

When you start flinging the dung around the room, don’t act surprised when someone hoses it off. It’s a poor argument that must be defended by “I don’t want to discuss it further.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa! At no point did I “start flinging dung around the room”–I pointed out some discrepancies between LDS teaching and orthodox Christian teaching, but as I said before, I’m carry no banner for either side because I’m an atheist.

Now both Genie and Emarkp say that my impressions of LDS theology are mistaken; that’s fine because I am always grateful for instruction.

So that my errors may be corrected, let me understand . . .

. . . the LDS church has never said that God the father had a physical body or that He was ever a man (not talking about the Incarnation).

. . . that Matthew 16:19, which most churches take as Jesus conferring his authority to the clergy, is the justification for Temple sealing

. . . that no ordinances beyond acceptance of Jesus as savior are necessary for slavation from sin

. . . that Jesus was not conceived from actual sex between Mary and Heavenly Father

. . . that souls do or do not exist before conception (the Pre-existence may be fully suppoerted in LDS theology but it is contradicted by standard Christian teaching)

And could you clarify this statement: “We accept those books as revealed scripture along with the Bible, but they are clearly not equal–nor are the books of Matthew and Deuteronomy equal.”? First, does not including the other 3/4 of the Quad violate Rev. 22:18, “18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”? Second, does not saying that Matthew and Deuteronomy are unequal violate 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”?

And how do you reckon that the phrase “heirs of God” in Rom. 8:17 justifies the doctrine that humans can be equal in being to Heavenly Father?

And is it true or false that in Temple weddings, the woman is pulled through a veil by her husband to symbolize her dependence on him for her salvation? (I got that from one those tawdry, badly written, fundie-style “Ah used to be one o’ them MORmons” confessionals, so I’m really asking if the description of Temple ceremonies is made up)

And if there are “more and more evidences” for the existence of the people, places, and events of the BoM, I’d very interested in seeing them (and oases in the Arabian peninsula don’t count). How about Mitochindrial DNA found in Central American Indians that match that of Jews? Maybe a Mayan menorah?

[godzillatemple]

gobear: I think the point is that all Christian denominations disagree amongst themselves over key points of doctrine, otherwise they would all be Catholics. Some denominations feel that baptism by immersion is a strict requirement of salvation and that mere “sprinkling” is insufficent. Another denomination feels that changing the Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday is not supported by the Bible. Some denominations feel that a real Christian is one who speaks in tongues, handles snakes, etc. Some denominations feel that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are somehow the same being, while other denominations believe that they are three distinct individuals. But each of these denominations is considered “Christian” because they believe in Christ and preach what they believe to be his word. The fact that different denominations have different ideas of what Christ’s words mean doesn’t make them any less Christian, and this goes for Mormons as well.

Heck – when Martin Luthor broke away from the Catholic Church 500 or so years ago, I’m sure the Catholics felt that Lutherans were “not Christian.” That didn’t change the fact that Lutherans still believed in Christ, though.

Barry

[gobear]

gobear: I think the point is that all Christian denominations disagree amongst themselves over key points of doctrine, otherwise they would all be Catholics. Some denominations feel that baptism by immersion is a strict requirement of salvation and that mere “sprinkling” is insufficent. Another denomination feels that changing the Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday is not supported by the Bible. Some denominations feel that a real Christian is one who speaks in tongues, handles snakes, etc. Some denominations feel that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are somehow the same being, while other denominations believe that they are three distinct individuals. But each of these denominations is considered “Christian” because they believe in Christ and preach what they believe to be his word. The fact that different denominations have different ideas of what Christ’s words mean doesn’t make them any less Christian, and this goes for Mormons as well.

Oh, I agree completely, and if the LDS limited themselves to Temple sealing and the like, I don’t think anyone could quibble with them being included in the main body of Christianity. I think the chief obstacles are that the Mormons add noew books to the Scriptural canon, invented a Jewish civilization inthe New World for which no evidence has ever been found, and most important, they do not view Jesus as the unique son of God, but merely the elder brother of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother’s spirit children.

For my part, if the LDS can sign on to the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, then they are Christian. If not, not.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by gobear
**For my part, if the LDS can sign on to the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, then they are Christian. If not, not. **

Well, it’s nice to know what your standards are. I’m guessing, then, that you don’t consider “born again Christians” who don’t accept the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds to “really” be Christians, either.

Remember, those creeds were approved by councils after much debate and disagreement, and the acceptance of these creeds led to numerous schisms in the early church. To a good Catholic, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church may not be considered a “Christian” (and vice versa), but as long as they both claim to worship Christ I personally don’t have a problem with considering them all “Christians”.

To each his own, though. I know a LOT of Southern Baptists and Born Again Christians who are utterly convinced that the Catholic Church is purely the work of the Devil and has utterly perverted all the teachings of Christ (praying to saints, worshipping idols, the whole “transubstantiation” bit, etc.) And yet, as long as Catholics claim to worship Christ in some form or another, I’m willing to consider them “Christians” even if many of their beliefs are directly contradicted by the Bible itself.

occ: You are aware that Monty is a practicing Mormon, are you not?

Barry

[gobear]

Well, it’s nice to know what your standards are. I’m guessing, then, that you don’t consider “born again Christians” who don’t accept the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds to “really” be Christians, either.

How can any born-again Christians deny the two creeds?

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible. And in one lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten from the father, only-begotten, that is from the being* of the father, God from God, light from light, true God from True God, begotten not made, one in being** with the father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on the earth, who because of us human beings and because of our salvation descended, became enfleshed, became human, suffered and rose on the third day, ascending to the heavens, coming to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. The catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes those who say: there was when he was not; and before being born he was not; or that he came to be from things that are not; or that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or ousia or mutable or changeable.

The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

In this context, “catholic” means universal, not the RCC.

To a good Catholic, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church may not be considered a “Christian” (and vice versa), but as long as they both claim to worship Christ I personally don’t have a problem with considering them all “Christians”.

You are laboring under a misconception. Even though the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope anathematized each other and the two confessions separated in 1954, the RCC and the Greek Orthodox churches consider each other to be two wings of the same Catholic church, and Orthodox church members may take communion in RC churches.

To each his own, though. I know a LOT of Southern Baptists and Born Again Christians who are utterly convinced that the Catholic Church is purely the work of the Devil and has utterly perverted all the teachings of Christ (praying to saints, worshipping idols, the whole “transubstantiation” bit, etc.) And yet, as long as Catholics claim to worship Christ in some form or another, I’m willing to consider them “Christians” even if many of their beliefs are directly contradicted by the Bible itself.

Well, the Shi’ite Baptists ( thanks to Molly Ivins) and the twice-born’s objection to Catholic “idolatry” are in error–Catholics do not worship idols. Saints’ images are reminders of exemplary virtue and devotion to God, that’s all. As far as quibbles over transubstantiation and other doctrinal issues, they may define denominational creed, but not universal Christian beliefs.

The essnetial articles that one must believe to be a Christian are that Jesus was the one and only son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who was born as a human being, died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again. He ascended to heaven, and He will return to judge the living and the dead.

[vanilla]

I was not trying to “help”, gobear just cheering you on.
You do a much better job than I.
I will go now…

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**The essnetial articles that one must believe to be a Christian are that Jesus was the one and only son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who was born as a human being, died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again. He ascended to heaven, and He will return to judge the living and the dead. **

Ah. Well, in that case, I can confidently state that Mormons are, in fact, Christians. They believe that Jesus was the one and only begotten son of God in the flesh, that he was born as a human being, that he died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again. That he ascended to heaven and will return to judge the living and the dead.

[I hesitate to include that Mormons consider Jesus to be the “second person of the Trinity” since “Trinity” usually refers to the Catholic notion of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit being three manifestations of one substance (a notion that is NOT accepted by all mainstream Christian faiths).]

Yes, Mormons believe a lot of other wacky things that other Christian faiths do not believe. Many of those beliefs derive from differing interpretations of Biblical scriptures, many derive from scriptures contained in the Book of Mormon, and many derive from modern-day revelation to living prophets. But nothing contradicts the core belief that Jesus is the Christ, that he is the only begotten son of God, that he died for our sins, and that salvation can only come through his name.

For the record, I am an atheist and believe the Bible to be a complete work of politically motivated fiction. I also think the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and that God doesn’t really speak to the president of the Mormon church. But I can’t help laughing at the hypocricy of those who have cherry picked the Bible to come up witheir unique version of Christianity and then call Mormons “unchristian” for daring to have differing opinions on the subject.

Mormons believe in Christ, ergo, they are Christians. Deal with it.

[gobear]

Ah. Well, in that case, I can confidently state that Mormons are, in fact, Christians. They believe that Jesus was the one and only begotten son of God in the flesh, that he was born as a human being, that he died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again. That he ascended to heaven and will return to judge the living and the dead.

So the LDS do not believe that Jesus was one of many spirit children? That He and Lucifer (pre-Fall) were spirit brothers? See, i’m hearing conflicting claims, and I’d be grateful if Genie, EmarkP, or Monty would point out the relevant passage from the BoM, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price that defines the LDS position of Jesus’s unique status as the second person of the Trinity.

For the record, I am an atheist and believe the Bible to be a complete work of politically motivated fiction. I also think the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and that God doesn’t really speak to the president of the Mormon church.

Ditto.

But I can’t help laughing at the hypocricy of those who have cherry picked the Bible to come up witheir unique version of Christianity and then call Mormons “unchristian” for daring to have differing opinions on the subject.

I’m not sure that trying to sort out doctrinal differences counts as “hypocrisy.”

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**You are laboring under a misconception. Even though the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope anathematized each other and the two confessions separated in 1954, the RCC and the Greek Orthodox churches consider each other to be two wings of the same Catholic church, and Orthodox church members may take communion in RC churches.

** It would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox (they’re more than just the Greeks) consider the RCC to be a rogue branch of the Church. And while the Orthodox may take communion in RC churches, the reverse is not permitted unless the Catholic has met the same standards that the Orthodox must to qualify.

[gobear]

Mormons believe in Christ, ergo, they are Christians. Deal with it.

Muslims believe in Christ as a prophet, although they explicitly deny that God could have a son. Do they count as Christians, also?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Muslims don’t worship Christ.

I think that Christianity can basically be defined as a belief in Jesus as God and as a redeemer of sins. There is a lot of room for variation within that definition but I would accept the most fundamental definitionof Christianity as the worship of Christ and under that definition Mormons qualify.

[dangermom]

Gobear, your second list is also erroneous, and I’d be happy to explain, but my computer’s been down and I’m having the most awful day ever, and I just can’t right now. I’ll be back.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
Upopular truth, indeed. And yet, no more unpopular than the truth that the Bible is also no more than a (not so) clever work of fiction. If one can suspend disbelief enough to accept the historical innacuracies, unproven claims, and internal inconsistencies of the Bible, why on Earth would one care if other people believe in the Book of Mormon as well? You might as well say that “The Lord of the Rings” is factual, but that "Harry Potter’ is obviously a work of fiction.

Testify, brotha’!

These kinds of threads just crack me up. I see one thread with Christians debating atheists and pooh-poohing logic, reason, empirical evidence, and historical accuracy in favor of what they “know”; then I scroll down a few threads, and see Christians bashing Mormons for failing those very same criterea. It would be funny if people weren’t so serious about it.

[gobear]

*Originally posted by genie *
**Gobear, your second list is also erroneous, and I’d be happy to explain, but my computer’s been down and I’m having the most awful day ever, and I just can’t right now. I’ll be back. **

Well, I’m asking for direct quotes from the Mormon scriptures that will give the official LDS position on these issues.

Jesus, unique and only son of God or just elder brother of spirit children?

God the Father–was He a man who became a God (as opposed to Jesus, who supposedly did the reverse)?

Did Lorenzo Snow say, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” ? If so, who made God?

Salvation through faith alone?

How do you account for so much NT scripture being included in the BoM?

Where are the archeological remains of the Nephite and Lamanite cities?

What about the mentions of horses, elephants, chariots, scimitars, wheat, barley, and other inaccuracies in the BoM?

Bear in mind that I’m an atheist, so I am not interested in who is “right”–if we can cast a skeptical eye on other supernatural claims, then BoM is not immune from skeptical criticism. Theology, of course, is non-falsifiable–I only ask those questions to compare the LDS theology to standard Christian beliefs. But when the BoM makes testable claims about the animals, plants, and civilizations of the New World, those claims shouls be checked.

And some hard evidence for the BoM would be appreciated (and I mean something beyond “Hebraisms”–like maybe a Mayan menorah or some Hebrew inscriptions in a Guatemalan temple)