Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Saints Alive]

I am not sure what good it would do. Those that LIE about our being Christian would also LIE about their motives for doing so.

That leave us with speculating about their nefarious motives.

Speaking of nefarious motives... we all know that the only reason LDS want to be called christian is so that we can dupe real "Christians" into joining us and then get them to devote their lives to evil and the works of satan in our temples. (I hope everyone can detect my sarcasm)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Speaking of nefarious motives... we all know that the only reason LDS want to be called christian is so that we can dupe real "Christians" into joining us and then get them to devote their lives to evil and the works of satan in our temples. (I hope everyone can detect my sarcasm)

Noted, but this is what is believed by many who make this a recurring theme.

[shalamabobbi]

It actually works to our advantage.

Someone who isn't LDS becomes acquainted with our religion and makes friends with some members.

Then they hear the rediculous representations of our faith by other denominations and end up defending our church and its teachings. The horns begin to grow but aren't noticed. However once they are sufficiently grown to become noticed the individual is left with the choice of being a social outcast amongst other denominations or being warmly received by the LDS.

It's a forced decision.

[KevinG]

It actually works to our advantage.

Someone who isn't LDS becomes acquainted with our religion and makes friends with some members.

Then they hear the rediculous representations of our faith by other denominations and end up defending our church and its teachings. The horns begin to grow but aren't noticed. However once they are sufficiently grown to become noticed the individual is left with the choice of being a social outcast amongst other denominations or being warmly received by the LDS.

It's a forced decision.

Many people don't know this but the rough burlap wall covering in many of our chapels is there so we can grind down our horns - keeping them secret sacred from the public.

Edited September 13, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

(I can just see Rob quoting this in a future argument as he so often does. "But I know an active LDS who believes...")

[shalamabobbi]

(I can just see Rob quoting this in a future argument as he so often does. "But I know an active LDS who believes...")

I can't comment on Rob due to RS's censure, but if he decides to repent and convert at a later date according to his speculation the fellowshipping and dinner dates are on him..

Edited September 13, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[blueadept]

It actually works to our advantage.

Someone who isn't LDS becomes acquainted with our religion and makes friends with some members.

Then they hear the rediculous representations of our faith by other denominations and end up defending our church and its teachings. The horns begin to grow but aren't noticed. However once they are sufficiently grown to become noticed the individual is left with the choice of being a social outcast amongst other denominations or being warmly received by the LDS.

It's a forced decision.

Hmmmmm.....I definitely feel like I defend the LDS church more than I prefer as a non-LDS individual. I haven't noticed the horns and I'm definitely still welcomed in other denominations as well as maintaining my LDS ties.

[Vance]

It actually works to our advantage.

Someone who isn't LDS becomes acquainted with our religion and makes friends with some members.

Then they hear the rediculous representations of our faith by other denominations and end up defending our church and its teachings. The horns begin to grow but aren't noticed. However once they are sufficiently grown to become noticed the individual is left with the choice of being a social outcast amongst other denominations or being warmly received by the LDS.

It's a forced decision.

I actually had that happen with one of my mission contacts. She read the BoM and received a witness that it was true. She took it to her pastor because she was so happy that she wanted to share the truth. He poo-pooed her testimony and said it was of the devil. She knew better and was baptized shortly thereafter.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Vance

[shalamabobbi]

Hmmmmm.....I definitely feel like I defend the LDS church more than I prefer as a non-LDS individual. I haven't noticed the horns and I'm definitely still welcomed in other denominations as well as maintaining my LDS ties.

I don't hate all EVs, just Rob. Some like Mudcat, I rather admire..

[Robert F. Smith]

I can't comment on Rob due to RS's censure, but if he decides to repent and convert at a later date according to his speculation the fellowshipping and dinner dates are on him..

Hey, I like Rob. You'all come along with him on that frabjous day and the tab is on me!!

[Robert F. Smith]

When traditional Christians are bent on using the word Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormonism from Christianity, one way (and maybe even the most effective way) of dealing with that is to turn the tables on them by informing then that Christianity as a whole is apostate, and therefore what they call Christianity is in fact an apostate version of the original Christianity (which surely is true in some sense at least), whereas Mormonism is a restoration of the original (and hence true) form of Christianity. In the final analysis this may indeed imply that Mormons are the only true Christians around, whereas others are apostate Christians (or not Christians at all); and I don't see a serious problem with that. If it is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of who is a Christian and who is not, or whether Mormons are Christians or not, then so be it. Let Mormonism be true, and all other Christians not be Christians at all, if they really want to play it that way. So no, I don't have a serious problem with the stance that zerinus is taking.

Exactly.

[shalamabobbi]

Hey, I like Rob. You'all come along with him on that frabjous day and the tab is on me!!

Y'all are making me teary-eyed. Stop it! Please stop it I say. (Real men don't cry)..

On a side note, are you willing to invite us out for a free dinner anyhow if Rob fails to convert?

[Robert F. Smith]

Y'all are making me teary-eyed. Stop it! Please stop it I say. (Real men don't cry)..

On a side note, are you willing to invite us out for a free dinner anyhow if Rob fails to convert?

Sorry, this contract only applies if and when Rob hits the waters of baptism and is confirmed a member of the LDS Church. Then we all go out to the Golden Corral on me.

[shalamabobbi]

Sorry, this contract only applies if and when Rob hits the waters of baptism and is confirmed a member of the LDS Church. Then we all go out to the Golden Corral on me.

Ok. I'll spring for pie. Maybe you could convince maklelan to come in on this. Perhaps together we could create a culinary temptation Rob can't resist..

[Robert F. Smith]

Ok. I'll spring for pie. Maybe you could convince maklelan to come in on this. Perhaps together we could create a culinary temptation Rob can't resist..

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach?

[spartacus]

Not quite. "Mormon" has been generally used to refer to specific membership in the LDS Church, it defined that way IIRC in the APA style guide. It is this way in most dictionaries (see for an example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mormon?s=t )The FLDS do not belong to the LDS faith. They do not claim to be LDS either. It is not because they are viewed as apostate, but simply because they are viewed as nonmembers.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of MORMON

1

: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith

2

: latter-day saint; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

BUT, "especially" just agrees with your "generally", as I do. However...

Definition of LATTER-DAY SAINT

: a member of any of several religious bodies tracing their origin to Joseph Smith in 1830 and accepting the Book of Mormon as divine revelation : mormon

So a mormon is a Latter-day Saint which is a mormon.

Again I agree that generally "mormon" is used for members of the CoJCoLDS. While Community of Christ may not, I believe that FLDS do refer to themselves as mormons. Also, Hinckley seemed to believe it important enough to speak about "fundamentalist mormons" because someone thought there was such a thing. If no one thought fundamentalists were mormon why would Hinckley have to clarify the opposite?

I also like this James' point of view (its short and sums up well):

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/are-the-rlds-flds-etc-mormons/

I believe he clarifies well how LDS and traditional Christians speak past each other (first couple paragraphs), and how the LDS/FLDS issue informs on the LDS/Christian issue (latter paragraphs).

And this gets back to my point about LDS understanding where traditional Christians are coming from. If LDS are doing to FLDS what Christians are doing to LDS, then LDS shouldn't be so surprised, so outraged, or unrelating to traditional Christians.

Read James' piece, it's good.

[Vance]

So, when the phrase "The Mormon Church" is used, which church are they talking about?

Edited September 17, 2012 by Vance

[urroner]

When the phrase "The Christian Church" is used, are they talking about a particular group or denomination or sect?

[thesometimesaint]

spartacus:

We LDS use the term Mormon as clarification to differentiate us from the FLDS not from Christianity. A Catholic can claim to be a Catholic Christian but has no right to claim Protestant Christians aren't Christian.

[Robert F. Smith]

Has anyone read Simon Critchley's piece in the NYTimes on "Why I Love Mormonism,"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120917

The concluding paragraph:

"Like Bloom, I see Joseph Smith’s apostasy as strong poetry, a gloriously presumptive and delusional creation from the same climate as Whitman, if not enjoying quite the same air quality. Perhaps Mormonism is not so far from romanticism after all. To claim that it is simply Christian is to fail to grasp its theological, poetic and political audacity. It is much more than mere Christianity. Why are Mormons so keen to conceal their pearl of the greatest price? Why is no one really talking about this? In the context of you-know-who’s presidential bid, people appear to be endlessly talking about Mormonism, but its true theological challenge is entirely absent from the discussion."

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone read Simon Critchley's piece in the NYTimes on "Why I Love Mormonism,"

http://opinionator.b...dit_ty_20120917

The concluding paragraph:

"Like Bloom, I see Joseph Smith’s apostasy as strong poetry, a gloriously presumptive and delusional creation from the same climate as Whitman, if not enjoying quite the same air quality. Perhaps Mormonism is not so far from romanticism after all. To claim that it is simply Christian is to fail to grasp its theological, poetic and political audacity. It is much more than mere Christianity. Why are Mormons so keen to conceal their pearl of the greatest price? Why is no one really talking about this? In the context of you-know-who’s presidential bid, people appear to be endlessly talking about Mormonism, but its true theological challenge is entirely absent from the discussion."

What I have been saying forever. This is why I became one in the first place.

This is precisely why Rorty messed up by not becoming a Mormon, and remaining an agnostic. Rorty loved Bloom.

Read page 20- 21 of Contingency Irony and Solidarity. It becomes very clear that what Rorty is objecting to is what some around here would call "ontological reality" and the Neoplatonic God as a tandem product of each other.

Recognizing that God is human totally eliminates Rorty's objection to religion- he never conceived that God could be human and immanent, or that humanism could be seen as theology, based on the premise that God is human.

I tried to cut and paste from the pdf but the ocr software was insufficient to the task of quoting all I wanted to- this is a teaser:

To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly

Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the

world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered

earlier - the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since

sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since

vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we

think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as

cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of

itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the

"intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the

vague sense that it would be hybris on our part to abandon the traditional

language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky,

and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the

poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch

with a realm which transcends the human.

http://pages.uoregon...ty_CIS_full.pdf

And of course the Mormon God does not "transcend" the human- he is immanent and indeed human himself.

Mormons have no clue what they have.

Edit: thanks for the link Bob!

Edited September 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone read Simon Critchley's piece in the NYTimes on "Why I Love Mormonism,"

Now that I have had a little time to put my thoughts into order in a better way, let me clarify Rorty's argument mentioned above, since it is unclear in the snippet I was able to provide. What he was saying is that the idea of language as representation of some reality beyond what we perceive and can speak about is a "divinization" of both the world and God himself, and that to understand that fact that language and experience are all we have is to do away with God and "ontological reality" all in one stroke.

What he does not say here, but what is part of the Pragmatist view of the world, is that experience itself is the only reality, so what we experience and talk about is as much as we can know about anything. "Truth" is about justified beliefs and not correspondence with some unknowable "ontological reality" beyond the possibility of human experience- and all we can know is what we as humans do in fact experience.

The upshot of that Pragmatist position is, as expressed by William James, that religious experience, AS experience is therefore "real" within its sphere to affect our lives.

If there is an "ontological reality" beyond experience, which is "represented" or "corresponds to" by "appearances" then religious experience could just be an "appearance" and not "real". This is actually the Neoplatonic and Cartesian view Rorty is arguing against.

But if there ARE only appearances,and experience is the only way we can know reality, then religious experience is as real as anything- it is just subjective in nature, but as real as feelings of conscience and right and wrong, or our subjective experience of personal choice.

So ultimately Rorty is arguing that God does not exist, precisely because the God he is arguing against is the God of the Neoplatonists- the transcendent God of a "reality" which no one can see feel taste or touch.

So Rorty's criticisms of this non-existent transcendent "god" does not apply to the Mormon concept of God at all- and in fact one can see Rorty as affirming an understanding similar to the one Mormonism has- affirming that direct human experience- and it's rational construction through language- or the "Word" of John 1 - brings all into existence.

Remember that Rorty was an atheist, or at least a very strong agnostic, but what he definitely opposes is the notion of a transcendent God. He never conceived of the possibility that God could be immanent and essentially, in nature, one of us, yet infinitely above us, as the Father of our spirits.

I think that IF had he had understood this notion that God could be an Idealized, Perfected human being, (and I think he might have accepted that as a metaphorical way of viewing God) he would have realized that his perceived need for atheism was unfounded and that indeed linguistic constructivism and/or Pragmatism indeed provides a way in which one could be "religious" without a transcendent God. In fact in a book he co-authored called the "Future of Religion" he makes this point.

But Mormonism ultimately makes theology into a kind of Theistic Humanism when it is properly understood. When God is a Human, theology cannot be anything but Humanism- raised to the power of infinity.

It is my belief that this unification of Mormonism with Humanism, inherent in the implied American Philosophy which undergirds Mormonism, could become the most powerful force for good the world has ever seen, if only we were to see its potential.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is my belief that this unification of Mormonism with Humanism, inherent in the implied American Philosophy which undergirds Mormonism, could become the most powerful force for good the world has ever seen, if only we were to see its potential.

Mark,

I hope that you are adding these sorts of observations to your book. I have met other Mormons who like Rorty. Unfortunatety most Mormons know less about their own theology than non-member admirer Simon Critchley. A well-educated man naturally sees the point.

Bob

Edited September 19, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We don't have to attach "christian" to Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc..., to identify them as christian. Why would anyone need to attach "christian" to LDS? It is right there in the acutal name of our church...The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

We never claimed to be Catholic christian, or Protestant christian in any of its forms. We are LDS christian.

I see this whole issue similar to those in the time of Christ that accused him of performing miracles by Beelzubub. The same way they were wrong about Jesus, those who claim we are not Christian are wrong.

We are not just his Church because it bears his name. He "Christ" is the founder thereof. The chief coronerstone. And because of D&C where upon he placed his seal.

[mfbukowski]

Mark,

I hope that you are adding these sorts of observations to your book. I have met other Mormons who like Rorty. Unfortunatety most Mormons know less about their own theology than non-member admirer Simon Critchley. A well-educated man naturally sees the point.

Bob

Thanks, I am, and you are right!