smac97 Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Huh?To a nonmember, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a new faith that's less than 200 years old. But this is how Mormons see it:"It's an older faith in the fact of what it is, because we believe in the church of Jesus Christ," says Bishop Randy Rummage. He leads the Pineville Ward - or congregation - in South Charlotte.He says, "It's the church that he established when he was on earth. Now, through a series of things such as the death of the Apostles after the savior's crucifixion, some essential parts of the church were lost. And the church was taken away."...Because this faith was established in relatively recent times - compared to two thousand years ago - it's been subjected to criticism. Some leaders of other Christian denominations have derided it as a cult.Charlotte Stake President Tom Cheney takes offense and says there's nothing secret about the church.He says, "We're exactly the opposite of that. We're not a closed society. We don't follow blindly. We invite all to join us. We are open about our beliefs."Mormon scholar Jan Shipps is not an LDS member. She says mainline Christians, especially Presbyterians and Evangelicals are most critical of the faith."Mormons are not Trinitarians. They understand that Jesus and Christ are two separate personages - anthropomorphic in beings. That is, they are similar to human beings," says Shipps....This belief of what happens after death is another difference between Mormons and mainline Christians.Mormon scholar Jan Shipps explains, "Most Protestants and Catholics have a belief in the - not in the bodily resurrection - but the endurance of the soul."I'm inclined to ascribe the first underlined statement ("Jesus and Christ are two separate personages") to a slip of the tongue. I'm pretty sure she meant God the Father and Jesus Christ "are two separate personages."But since when do "most Protestants and Catholics...not [believe] in the bodily resurrection?" Is that right?-Smac
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Huh?I'm inclined to ascribe the first underlined statement ("Jesus and Christ are two separate personages") to a slip of the tongue. I'm pretty sure she meant God the Father and Jesus Christ "are two separate personages."But since when do "most Protestants and Catholics...not [believe] in the bodily resurrection?" Is that right?-SmacI don't know about "most" Protestants but it certainly is a belief held by many and even advanced by some theologians. Rhinomelon could help us out here. I'm at school and don't have my evangelical books handy. He has a great one on theology (I don't remember the name!) that goes into this in pretty good depth. As far as Catholics, I'd say she's completely wrong. Some catholics may believe that, or even most, but it isn't part of their doctrine.
peeps Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I'm inclined to ascribe the first underlined statement ("Jesus and Christ are two separate personages") to a slip of the tongue. I'm pretty sure she meant God the Father and Jesus Christ "are two separate personages."I would think you're right - it was either a slip of the tongue or a transcription error. In context, the error is obvious.
MatthewG Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Huh?I'm inclined to ascribe the first underlined statement ("Jesus and Christ are two separate personages") to a slip of the tongue. I'm pretty sure she meant God the Father and Jesus Christ "are two separate personages."But since when do "most Protestants and Catholics...not [believe] in the bodily resurrection?" Is that right?-SmacHOLY CRAP THAT'S MY BISHOP!!!! LOL, I'm in the Pineville ward!
rhinomelon Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I don't know about "most" Protestants but it certainly is a belief held by many and even advanced by some theologians. Rhinomelon could help us out here. I'm at school and don't have my evangelical books handy. He has a great one on theology (I don't remember the name!) that goes into this in pretty good depth. As far as Catholics, I'd say she's completely wrong. Some catholics may believe that, or even most, but it isn't part of their doctrine.Hey Drew! Well, you caught me away from my books. I think the one I sent you parts of was "Integrative Theology" by Bruce Demarest and some other guy. It's a great one for getting a picture of various stances to theological topics. As far as the bodily resurrection goes, I can't think of any Protestant denomination that denies it, although I'm sure there are some scattered theologians out there who might (hello, Spong!). It's certainly not a common position among Protestants. Catholics certainly do not deny it. Hopefully she just mispoke there, and with the "Jesus and Christ" thing. Take care, everyone
mledbetter Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 HOLY CRAP THAT'S MY BISHOP!!!! LOL, I'm in the Pineville ward!Small world. :-)
LifeOnaPlate Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 The mp3 has her saying "Jesus and Christ" like in the transcription, but my guess is this was a slip of the tongue.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 The mp3 has her saying "Jesus and Christ" like in the transcription, but my guess is this was a slip of the tongue.A responsible news journalist might have asked her if that's what she meant to say. Then again, not everyone is familiar enough with the facts to detect the error.
oats Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 A responsible journalist would make a correction and fix the error.
emeliza Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I wonder if Jan Schipps will read this and go back and correct it. At least the first part about Jesus and Christ. I have to say, that is a tad bit funny.I have never heard that others don't believe in the bodily resurrection though.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I wonder if Jan Schipps will read this and go back and correct it. At least the first part about Jesus and Christ. I have to say, that is a tad bit funny.I have never heard that others don't believe in the bodily resurrection though.I would be amazed to learn that Jan Shipps lurks here.On the other hand, Rick Turley suprised me on one occasion last year when he said, "I've been reading you on line." And he wasn't referring to my Church News articles.
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Hey Drew! Well, you caught me away from my books. I think the one I sent you parts of was "Integrative Theology" by Bruce Demarest and some other guy. It's a great one for getting a picture of various stances to theological topics. As far as the bodily resurrection goes, I can't think of any Protestant denomination that denies it, although I'm sure there are some scattered theologians out there who might (hello, Spong!). It's certainly not a common position among Protestants. Catholics certainly do not deny it. Hopefully she just mispoke there, and with the "Jesus and Christ" thing. Take care, everyone That's the book! I have a copy of it at home now. It's pretty cool, I'd say. I think there may be a popular belief among some Protestants/Catholics who are untrained in their own theology to think that when you die you go straight to heaven or hell for eternity without a resurrection, but it certainly isn't creedal Protestantism/Catholicism of any sort that I know of, and it certainly isn't scriptural. It's kind of like the idea that many Mormons and some Mormon theologians have had that we have to "earn" exaltation......On that note, Rhino, what purpose does the resurrection have in your mind? I mean, what good does a body do us after judgment?
emeliza Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I would be amazed to learn that Jan Shipps lurks here.On the other hand, Rick Turley suprised me on one occasion last year when he said, "I've been reading you on line." And he wasn't referring to my Church News articles.I meant if she will read the article she was quoted in, not read this thread.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I meant if she will read the article she was quoted in, not read this thread.OK. Got it.
Mormon Questioner Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Actually most Christian religions don't believe like we do about the Resurrection. Isn't that true? We are unique in believing that Jesus is currently in possession of a flesh and bone body, right? Maybe I am way off base, but I thought that was one of our unique doctrines. I don't think many deny that Christ was physically resurrected, but I think that they mostly feel that it was a temporary thing, to show his followers.
Nevo Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 The mp3 has her saying "Jesus and Christ" like in the transcription, but my guess is this was a slip of the tongue.She apologized for this in the comments section: it was a slip of the tongue.
rhinomelon Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Actually most Christian religions don't believe like we do about the Resurrection. Isn't that true? We are unique in believing that Jesus is currently in possession of a flesh and bone body, right? Maybe I am way off base, but I thought that was one of our unique doctrines. I don't think many deny that Christ was physically resurrected, but I think that they mostly feel that it was a temporary thing, to show his followers.I've heard of the belief that Christ doesn't currently have a body, but I've never heard of that from any official sources. As far as the resurrection of the body, it is a core belief of Christianity, from the creeds to the modern statements of faith and catechisms. There are a few individuals who reject it, but none speak for Christianity in any official capacity. On that note, Rhino, what purpose does the resurrection have in your mind? I mean, what good does a body do us after judgment?I'm not quite sure how to answer that last question. It's like asking what good a body does us now. It's not a matter of doing us good, but a matter of who "us" is by nature. (Wow, that last clause sent a grammatical chill up my spine.)Human beings are embodied beings by nature; any existence, if it's to be a full human existence, must involve the body. We were meant to enjoy and serve God and be in his presence as full, perfected human beings. That's not possible without the body. This is one major area in which the early church fathers (with a few exceptions, like Origen), strongly contradicted the general philosophical consensus of the surrounding pagan culture. The resurrection of the body has always been a part of Christian belief. I think there may be a popular belief among some Protestants/Catholics who are untrained in their own theology to think that when you die you go straight to heaven or hell for eternity without a resurrection, but it certainly isn't creedal Protestantism/Catholicism of any sort that I know of, and it certainly isn't scriptural. It's kind of like the idea that many Mormons and some Mormon theologians have had that we have to "earn" exaltation......I agree, although I suspect that most of those Prots/Catholics would still conceive of heaven or hell in bodily terms; they just don't consciously include the resurrection as the intermediate step. We die here, then we are suddenly in heaven or hell, still in our bodies. Take care, everyone
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I'm not quite sure how to answer that last question. It's like asking what good a body does us now. It's not a matter of doing us good, but a matter of who "us" is by nature. (Wow, that last clause sent a grammatical chill up my spine.)Human beings are embodied beings by nature; any existence, if it's to be a full human existence, must involve the body. We were meant to]enjoy and serve God and be in his presence as full, perfected human beings.That's a solid answer. Thanks! And, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I agree, although I suspect that most of those Prots/Catholics would still conceive of heaven or hell in bodily terms; they just don't consciously include the resurrection as the intermediate step. We die here, then we are suddenly in heaven or hell, still in our bodies.That's probably a fair assessment.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Human beings are embodied beings by nature; any existence, if it's to be a full human existence, must involve the body. We were meant to enjoy and serve God and be in his presence as full, perfected human beings. That's not possible without the body.With this remark, you are sounding very like a Mormon.
rhinomelon Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 With this remark, you are sounding very like a Mormon. Well, the Mormons did borrow some great stuff from us mainstreamers, you know...
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Well, the Mormons did borrow some great stuff from us mainstreamers, you know... More like the "mainstreamers" managed to hold on to a few vestiges of the pure doctrine of Christ.
LifeOnaPlate Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I emailed Jan and she said it was a slip of the tongue.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I emailed Jan and she said it was a slip of the tongue.What about the "bodily resurrection" thing? Is she sticking with that answer?
BCSpace Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 But since when do "most Protestants and Catholics...not [believe] in the bodily resurrection?" Is that right?It's a pretty common belief I come across though I can't tell you who believes what. They believe that a resurrected spiritual body is not a physical body. In addition, some believe that those who experience damnation experience the destruction of the soul, in other words, they are snuffed out of existence completely.
Obiwan Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 One of the "logic" problems I've alway's had with many non-LDS religions is if Christ does "currently" have a body, why and how???He is after all supposed to be "God", a third "part" not separate from the Father, supposed to be perfect and Eternal, etc. etc.So, why wouldn't he just be "spirit" like the Father supposudly is???Along the same lines, why would "we" even have body's after, the "Father" is so "different" from us? If matter is so "inferior" and not of God's nature, what's the "importance" of body's then, i.e. what the necessity for a Resurrection???How could something so "different" from the Father actually live and inherit all He has? And on and on.Lot's of problems they ignore in order to accept their version of the "Trinity".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.