Daniel Peterson Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Ralph Hancock enters the lists:http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2010/04/16/the-mormon-menace/comment-page-1/#comment-10821
Bernard Gui Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Ralph Hancock enters the lists:http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2010/04/16/the-mormon-menace/comment-page-1/#comment-10821Nicely done! Bernard
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Ralph Hancock enters the lists:http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2010/04/16/the-mormon-menace/comment-page-1/#comment-10821Great article and interesting site- thanks!I think the key perhaps to both coming closer to some elements of progressive creedal Christianity is as I seem to recall you have mentioned before, the idea of the "Social Trinity", with our own view of the Godhead as one in purpose, unified by love, and the purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".It seems that those who believe in the social trinity affirm nearly a "family" relationship between the members of the Godhead- and imo that sounds awfully close to something we might agree with. Add to that a human participation in their perechoresis in love, with the possibility of exaltation in the spirit of John 17, and I think we might be very close in these areas indeed.
Daniel Peterson Posted April 17, 2010 Author Posted April 17, 2010 There happens, ahem, to be a stunningly brilliant article on this very topic in Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007), the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology:http://www.smpt.org/element.htmlUnfortunately, despite the loud demands of desperate mobs of screaming fans, it isn't yet available on line.
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 There happens, ahem, to be a stunningly brilliant article on this very topic in Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007), the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology:http://www.smpt.org/element.htmlUnfortunately, despite the loud demands of desperate mobs of screaming fans, it isn't yet available on line.Dang. I have to buy that. I keep forgetting.
jwhitlock Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 The control of definitions seems to be very important - to those who want to control all things.Challenging definitions is a Good Thing.
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 The control of definitions seems to be very important - to those who want to control all things.Challenging definitions is a Good Thing.The control of language is only important if you are someone who uses it.Challenging definitions is the Only Thing.
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Are Christians Mormon?Are Mormon Christian?Are Christians Mormon?Are Methodists Christian?Are Christians Methodist?Are women human?Are humans women?Your question is dumb and nonsensical.
Mudcat Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 From what I can gather, the article seems to address the notion that Mormons aren't Christian because they are not Trinitarians.I think the view is a bit nearsighted to exclude someone on those grounds, but I suppose in a broader sense at least LDS aren't the only ones that get left out in the cold by this rather obtuse case of myopia that seems to be a bit contagious amongst non-LDS Christians. Such narrow views on "who is/who isn't Christian" don't leave just LDS out in the cold. Any of those who adhere or adhered to Adoptionism, Albigenses , Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Gnosticism, Kenosis, Modalism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Patripassionism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Socinianism, Subordinationism or Tritheism would be just as insufficiently Christian by the same standards. The fact that such positions exist, is proof IMO, that there are and have been a number of folks who considered themselves Christians that weren't Trinitarians. Though I certainly do believe that the concept of the Trinity is the clearest understanding of Scripture... BUT the thing that I don't see emerging from Scripture is a mandate that one must believe the Trinity to be a Christian.
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Though I certainly do believe that the concept of the Trinity is the clearest understanding of Scripture... BUT the thing that I don't see emerging from Scripture is a mandate that one must believe the Trinity to be a Christian.I knew there was a reason why I like you.
Theo Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 I love this part...emphaisis added.Whatever may be at stake in affirming that Mormons believe in a
Daniel2 Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 The whole attempt to defame the LDS Faith through various versions of the "Mormons aren't Christians" arguement is silly and stupid. Just sayin'.On my mission, I loved the book "Are Mormons Christian?" by Stephen Robinson.Darin
StuddleyG Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Of course we're Christian. It's pretty obvious. But we have so many theological differences from the rest Christianity that they don't like to call us Christian. Its not just the Trinity thing, but there's Kolob, heavenly mother, pre-earth life, eternal marriage, God once being a man, plurality of Gods, three degrees of glory, the fall of Adam being a good thing, polygamy, etc. Lets face it. We're different. We're too different to be in the same category as everybody else. Historian Richard L. Bushman said that our wierdness is something we have to admit. We are a peculiar people.
Nathair/|\ Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 On my mission, I loved the book "Are Mormons Christian?" by Stephen Robinson.DarinOne of my favorites. His Believing Christ transformed my understanding of the Atonement and Salvation.
Nathair/|\ Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Are Mormon Christian?Are Christians Mormon?Are Methodists Christian?Are Christians Methodist?Are women human?Are humans women?Your question is dumb and nonsensical.It was a joke.
LinuxGal Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 Though I certainly do believe that the concept of the Trinity is the clearest understanding of Scripture... BUT the thing that I don't see emerging from Scripture is a mandate that one must believe the Trinity to be a Christian.It's not a big deal. What it boils down to is if a Mormon converts to Catholicism, he or she must be baptized again in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a Catholic converts to the CoJCoLDS, he or she gets baptized again too, in "Jesus name" if I'm not mistaken, much like Oneness Pentecostals. The rest of it is a power trip by self-appointed gatekeepers who alone reserve the right to assign the name "Christian" to people.
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 It's not a big deal. What it boils down to is if a Mormon converts to Catholicism, he or she must be baptized again in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a Catholic converts to the CoJCoLDS, he or she gets baptized again too, in "Jesus name" if I'm not mistaken, much like Oneness Pentecostals. The rest of it is a power trip by self-appointed gatekeepers who alone reserve the right to assign the name "Christian" to people.Actually, no. Mormons are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Rebecca Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 "Obtuse case of myopia"....well said Mudcat...well said.By the way, baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
handys003 Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 It's not a big deal. What it boils down to is if a Mormon converts to Catholicism, he or she must be baptized again in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a Catholic converts to the CoJCoLDS, he or she gets baptized again too, in "Jesus name" if I'm not mistaken, much like Oneness Pentecostals. The rest of it is a power trip by self-appointed gatekeepers who alone reserve the right to assign the name "Christian" to people.I thought you said in your introduction forum that you read the BoM?D&C 20: 72, 7372 aBaptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent
LinuxGal Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 I thought you said in your introduction forum that you read the BoM?I did indeed, and I am currently blogging every single chapter of it. Not having a Temple Recommend myself, I made a guess that you did like it says in Mormon 7:8 (and also 4 Nephi 1) "Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus. " Then again, other people in 3 Nephi 11:25 said, "Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. "D&C 20: 72, 7372 aBaptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent
bluebell Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 I did indeed, and I am currently blogging every single chapter of it. Not having a Temple Recommend myself, I made a guess that you did like it says in Mormon 7:8 Converts don't get baptized in teh temple, they get baptized in a church usually, in a baptismal font, or if for some reason that's not available, in some other larger body of water like a lake or something.You can attend an LDS baptismal service anytime, whether you are a member or not.
Sandy Petersen Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 It DOESN'T have to be in the exact words "Father Son and Holy Ghost" because, obviously, people who are baptized in languages other than English don't use the English words. Heck, Moroni didn't use the English words. We are required to use a particular phrase today, to ensure completion and correctness of the ordinance, but if Joseph Smith had translated the Nephite phrase as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", which would have had precisely the same meaning, we would have been baptizing in those words.
Brenda Posted May 16, 2010 Posted May 16, 2010 I've grown weary of the whole argument. I know I'm Christian. God knows I'm Christian. That's all that matters.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.