The trinity is indeed one reason why some claim that the LDS Church is not ‘really Christian.’ There are other reasons too, such as a lack of historic continuity with other churches. A good source is Are Mormons Christians? by Stephen Robinson for an indepth look at this question.
So, the trinity question. The LDS do not accept the Nicene Creed, believing that it was written as a political and religious compromise after the apostacy by uninspired men who felt the need to reconcile Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy. The Nicene Creed is not, AFAweK, scripture, and we do not feel bound by it. Words used to describe the Trinity are not found in the Bible, and Biblical writers do not seem to have worried about this question. Why, then, is the Nicene Creed considered by our accusers to be necessary for ‘qualification’ as Christian? Were not the 1st century Christians, who had no Creed, also Christian? Is not a belief in the Bible enough to ‘qualify?’ Why is a simple belief in Christ not enough?
I don’t understand why some people feel that they can draw lines around a certain set of beliefs and say, ‘us but not you’ when we have a belief in Christ in common. I think it’s pretty lame. Oh well.
Quick note, I apologize for the mistake. I am aware that LDS is considered a Christian religion (at least by LDS). I was just looking for a word to encompass “et al” in the Christian fold and my shorthand was misleading. Mea culpa.
I will address more later, but just wanted to clear that up. Still, it started a good digression in and of itself
Monty, I know we had a discussion on this subject in the past, and it was after that and a couple of threads with Polycarp that I found myself reviewing my own thoughts in this matter. While at one time I would have been inclined to consider as Christian only those who embrace the core beliefs of traditional orthodox Christianity, I now see that the term is, and should be, broader. “Christian” is not a term that anybody or any group holds trademark on. My response to CalMeacham was an attempt to explain why some Christians are exclusive in determining those they feel are entitled to call themselves Christian, from the perspective of one who was guilty of that particular error in the past. I did not intend to give offense, and apologize if I did so.
Oops/ Let me correct that.
That would be Monty from last year, not Monty nowadays.
Sorry.
Apologizing, Monty(he’s really a sweetheart)
(no, I’m not being sarcastic)
Actually, I recall some “bad” words posted by you.
But thank you for the compliment.
I have changed since being on the straight dope board.
I’ve learned a lot, and hope to learn more.
We all try to be more like Jesus; its not easy, as you know.
You may be on to something here, vertigo. For example: What about Joseph Smith’s 1st attempt at writing the BoM, about a year previous to the 1st version that was published? There was 100+ pages that his scribe at the time took home, and which disappeared while in his possession.
I think I remember my Mormon friend saying something about the BoM being written by Joseph Smith in ~8 weeks, as well. Going to have to ask him about this.
Btw - Anyone able to point me to the historical evidence for the BoM my Mormon friend says exists that I asked about in my previous post? I’d ask him for it again, but he’s gone out of town for a month or 2.
Actually, we should all just let folks find their particular brand of religion; everyone can research the pros and cons of each of them online, I don’t mean to come across as militant here.
Nothing I say is going to change Mormons minds, and anyone who isn’t going to become one doesn’t really care for the cites I’ve listed anyway.
vanilla, who still believes its okay to drink tea-but then again, I’m sortof pentecostal, so its okay.
I just wanted to say hi to genie and emarkp! I always enjoy reading your posts. And I wanted to congratulate genie’s brother who just got home (he was in Pusan, right?) I served in Taejon about ten years ago and I loved it!
Hey, helena, thanks! My brother was in Pusan, and he’d go back now if someone wanted to pay for the ticket.
FoLoki, I don’t know much about your question. For one thing, I don’t think any amount of historical or archaeological evidence would convert anyone to the truthfulness of the BoM; only the Spirit can do that. I’ve heard about stuff, but couldn’t tell ya. You could try the FARMS website–look at the eLibrary.
OK, give this page a try; the first essay is pretty interesting (I think it may be a transcript of a lecture or lecture series).
Speaking of lectures, I just remembered that I just bought a book of lecture transcripts by Hugh Nibley about the BoM. It has some very cool information in it–useless link–there’s a whole series of them.
FoL, since I wrote those, I’ve found what appears to be the most reliable and popular online site for these things-- http://www.jefflindsay.com/ . You may be interested. I’ve heard it recommended many times, but had never come across it until now (not having, as I said, a lot of interest in this topic).
Since the floor seems to be open for general questions about Mormonism, there are a couple of things which have always bothered me. I’m asking for the sake of reducing my own ignorance, not to insult, although I’ll admit to a rather frustrated tone.
*Why was another set of scriptures in the United States needed?
More specifically, what I mean by this is, why weren’t the original set of documents which became the Bible and Apocrypha as currently defined adequate? Also, if additional documents were needed, why did it take over a millenium and a half? Finally, why the US rather than, say Korea, or Australia?
*Please explain proxy baptism more fully.
This is a concept which I don’t understand and which I’m inclined, I’m afraid to consider offensive based on what little I know. I’m from a long line of rather stubborn peasants who were not LDS (mostly some form of Church of England, I think, although my grandmother was apparently a Baptist). They chose their religions with varying degrees of consciousness. Since for me, faith is a conscious expression of will and action which requires that a person be alive to perform it, I don’t understand how an action taken by a third party after I’ve died can influence my final fate. Also, assuming my soul is conscious of events affecting it after death, I’m pretty sure it’d be rather annoyed by someone trying to get it to conform to a faith it had rejected in life.
As far as my opinions on the church of LDS as a whole, I have met Mormons over the years, and have a mostly pleasant opinion of them. I’m not comfortable with someone who tells me I must conform to their way of thinking to be a good person/go to heaven, but I do (obviously), enjoy a good, lively debate about religion. I’m not at all interested in heirarchies, so this business about levels of heaven is something I’m not comfortable with. That is also one person’s opinion, and not worth much to those who are comfortable with it.
