Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[MiserereNobis]

It seems that the Christian denominations are the brittle ones.  They leave no room for those who differ from them.

 

In Catholicism, at least, we say to all non-Christians, "come join us and be baptized and partake in Christ's Church!"  There's room enough for all!

 

[ERayR]

In Catholicism, at least, we say to all non-Christians, "come join us and be baptized and partake in Christ's Church!"  There's room enough for all!

 

 

You know that Mormons have the very same saying. 

[MiserereNobis]

You know that Mormons have the very same saying. 

 

Yup.  I almost said, "bring your good and let us add to it!"

[why me]

In Catholicism, at least, we say to all non-Christians, "come join us and be baptized and partake in Christ's Church!"  There's room enough for all!

 

This is partially true. The catholic church also welcomes christians into their fold. Thus, the welcome home campaign that one can see on many catholic sites. So, if a protestant joins the catholic faith and makes the announcement on a catholic site, he or she will get a resounding 'welcome home' from the catholics on the board. The catholic church is also a missionary church, welcoming protestants etc into the faith.

[saemo]

It seems that the Christian denominations are the brittle ones. They leave no room for those who differ from them.

Implications.

Inviting LDS members to use Christian sources, implies that it would make sense to do so, which implies you just might like to join in the larger Christian conversation, which implies there is room.

What I see, is that in general LDS members don't want to join the conversation.

Edited January 1, 2015 by saemo

[Calm]

Implications.

Inviting LDS members to use Christian sources, implies that it would make sense to do so, which implies you just might like to join in the larger Christian conversation, which implies there is room.

What I see, is that in general LDS members don't want to join the conversation.

What do you mean by "conversation"?

LDS sources are Christian sources to use, when someone insists they are not this indicates to most LDS the "conversation" isn't meant to be an open one, but one stacked against them by setting up terms etc. to exclude LDS expression. For those who have participated in such, they know it isn't going to be actual conversing, but rather a dogmatic lecture of why LDS are wrong most of the time and most wouldn't feel a need to spend time on that where they would enjoy a conversation about shared and different beliefs where nuances and implications and explanations of development of thought are all explored.

If LDS insisted all religious conversation had to be within a limited context that admitted LDS beliefs, etc. but nonLDS beliefs as inappropriate, I don't see too many nonLDS Christians wanting to be part of that conversation with good cause.

I know many, many LDS who have attempted to join online conversations who are banned for linking to anything on lds.org, some who were banned for using nonLDS Christians stuff because they were told that wasn't their belief, etc. kind of hard to be part of a conversation when it amounts to being told to shut up unless you agree completely with what the other is saying.

[saemo]

What do you mean by "conversation"?

LDS sources are Christian sources to use, when someone insists they are not this indicates to most LDS the "conversation" isn't meant to be an open one, but one stacked against them by setting up terms etc. to exclude LDS expression. For those who have participated in such, they know it isn't going to be actual conversing, but rather a dogmatic lecture of why LDS are wrong most of the time and most wouldn't feel a need to spend time on that where they would enjoy a conversation about shared and different beliefs where nuances and implications and explanations of development of thought are all explored.

If LDS insisted all religious conversation had to be within a limited context that admitted LDS beliefs, etc. but nonLDS beliefs as inappropriate, I don't see too many nonLDS Christians wanting to be part of that conversation with good cause.

I know many, many LDS who have attempted to join online conversations who are banned for linking to anything on lds.org, some who were banned for using nonLDS Christians stuff because they were told that wasn't their belief, etc. kind of hard to be part of a conversation when it amounts to being told to shut up unless you agree completely with what the other is saying.

Yes, this is the difficulty for LDS. The D&C or Book of Mormon are viewed as a Mormon source only,

and not a Christian source.but that is also the claim of Mormonism itself, that is, that Christian sources need to be "fixed" with unique Mormon material. You can't blame Christians for viewing a Mormon "fix"as outside of Christianity.

Edited January 1, 2015 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

The Catholic Scriptures have more books than other Christian's Scriptures. Therefore Catholics can't be Christians. See how that works?

[saemo]

The Catholic Scriptures have more books than other Christian's Scriptures. Therefore Catholics can't be Christians. See how that works?

Non sequitur does not an argument make.

[thesometimesaint]

Non sequitur does not an argument make.

 

That my friend is not a non sequitur. It is following your own logic to apply to your beliefs.

[saemo]

That my friend is not a non sequitur. It is following your own logic to apply to your beliefs.

Right, so Islam using the Koran makes them also Christian as its writings cover what they believe about Jesus as well as Mormon writings cover what you believe about Jesus.

The Protestants removing the Apocrypha doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Mormonism and Islam do by adding their respective, unique, scriptures.

Edited January 1, 2015 by saemo

[pogi]

The Protestants removing the Apocrypha doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Mormonism and Islam do by adding their respective, unique, scriptures.

 

The Catholics added the Apocrypha, why can't we add something?  This all ends up being an argument about authority.  Who has the authority to add or reject writings as scripture? 

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[saemo]

The Catholics adding the Apocrypha doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ either.

My dear friend, I recommend you study up on the Septuagint and its use in the Greek speaking community from which the Early Church existed, from which the library of books we call the New Testament, are sourced.

[pogi]

My dear friend, I recommend you study up on the Septuagint and its use in the Greek speaking community from which the Early Church existed, from which the library of books we call the New Testament, are sourced.

 

You commented before I finished editing my post.  Here is the edit:

 

The Catholics added the Apocrypha, why can't we add something?  This all ends up being an argument about authority.  Who has the authority to add or reject writings as scripture? 

[saemo]

The Catholics added the Apocrypha, why can't we add something?

I see you changed your comments.

Yes, the NT is Catholic, in its meaning of being sourced from the universal Church. The OT Apocrypha which the Protestants removed were in use by the universal Church from the beginning, as they were included in the Greek translation of Hebrew scripture that was in use during the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the use of the Greek translation, that included the Apocrypha, ceased in the synagogues. Scholars generally site two reason. The usage of the Greek translation by the new Christian religion was viewed unfavorably by the Jews, and the belief that God allowing the destruction of the temple as a sign the usage of non Hebrew text was sinful. The Jewish community in that time and place then ceased to use the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures, which do not include the Apocrypha.

The Christian community of that time and place continued to use the Greek translation. The universal Church has continued to use all of the books that were in the Greek translation from the time of Jesus and the Apostles. During the Protestan reformation, there was an inclination to use Hebrew Scriptures that matched to what the Jews of the time were using. Also, the Apocrypha supports some Catholic dogma, which the Protestants disagreed with, and so removing the books solved the problem of ones theology matching to Traditional scripture. Mormons do the opposite, adding books to solve the problem of ones theology not matching to Traditional scripture.

In other words, If the Greek translation that included the Apocrypha was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for Catholics.

Edited January 1, 2015 by saemo

[Calm]

We add books because we receive revelation, not to support theology already believed.

[thesometimesaint]

Right, so Islam using the Koran makes them also Christian as its writings cover what they believe about Jesus as well as Mormon writings cover what you believe about Jesus.

The Protestants removing the Apocrypha doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Mormonism and Islam do by adding their respective, unique, scriptures.

 

No it makes them Muslim. Differing sects of the Muslim religion are still Muslim. All of which have added Scripture and/or differing understanding to the Koran. The Catholics add other books other Christian's Bibles plus they add in tradition and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

 

The Catholic church also took books out of the bible. It established a committee to decide which books to include and which to exclude from the Bible. Pot meet kettle.

 

Mormonism doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It merely says that God is neither dead or silent. That he talks to men(women) today. Or as the Bible does say in Ephesians 4:13 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

Edited January 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[saemo]

It is hard for me to take a conversation seriously where actual history is discounted for propaganda, or wishful, thinking.

Have a good day and a happy New Year.

Edited January 1, 2015 by saemo

[pogi]

In other words, If the Greek translation that included the Apocrypha was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for Catholics.

 

I understand. My point is that when you consider how your cannon came to be, it was a process of including or rejecting certain writings.  This happened some centuries after Christ.  The Catholics claim the authority to include or reject certain writings as cannon, so we share that similarity in that we claim the same authority.

 

I would argue that our additional scripture does not "change" the gospel of Jesus Christ as you suggest, it clarifies it.  I would also suggest that removing scripture, which you seem ok with, is more dangerous to the gospel of Jesus Christ than adding scripture. 

[ERayR]

Implications.

Inviting LDS members to use Christian sources, implies that it would make sense to do so, which implies you just might like to join in the larger Christian conversation, which implies there is room.

What I see, is that in general LDS members don't want to join the conversation.

 

What conversation? 

 

What Christian sources? 

 

Again, what conversation?

[ERayR]

Yes, this is the difficulty for LDS. The D&C or Book of Mormon are viewed as a Mormon source only,

and not a Christian source.but that is also the claim of Mormonism itself, that is, that Christian sources need to be "fixed" with unique Mormon material. You can't blame Christians for viewing a Mormon "fix"as outside of Christianity.

 

The view is not the problem.  To be so rigid and brittle as to relegate it as outside the conversation" does pose a problem.  It seems non-LDS Christians are afraid of open conversation.

[ERayR]

Non sequitur does not an argument make.

 

Fear of the conversation?

[ERayR]

Right, so Islam using the Koran makes them also Christian as its writings cover what they believe about Jesus as well as Mormon writings cover what you believe about Jesus.

 

Now you not making sense.  You fully understand Islam is not a Christian religion.

[Bikeemikey]

This.

That which attacks 'Mormonism' inevitably attacks faith in Christ.

Can you elaborate on this some more. I'm not sure how you draw this strong causal relationship.

After all, much of the original anti-Mormonism was created by Christians to defend "Christ".

[Spammer]

I understand, partly because I have met so many fine and knowledgeable Roman Catholics, and partly because of what I know of many Catholic saints. Then too, I appreciate the sincerety of so many Catholic priests and members of holy orders. I have no problem at all with your being Roman Catholic. I think that your heart is in the right place now. We'll just have to see how this all shakes out over on the other side some day, brother. Just let God be true.

I'm with you, Robert. Well said and I agree. Thank you. I'm Eastern Orthodox, btw. As we say in our tradition, God is merciful and the lover of mankind. In our belief, salvation is offered only through Christ in His apostolic church, but we also believe there are members of His church who are known only to Him. I am confident that all people of goodwill and charity will be saved in His kingdom. May God bless you.