JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 41 minutes ago, Navidad said: Thanks. I certainly don't care about their names. I will look at the link you provided in the morning. I believe by all of your responses that I am getting that I misunderstood. You all are talking about the same thing. This guy said that or this; not that a bonafide group of Protestants hold this as a belief or doctrine. That is what I was trying to figure out. I have had Mormons tell me I am a son of perdition since I attend a ward and haven't converted. Should I consider that the opinion of Latter-day Saints as a group? No wait, don't answer that. I don't want to know that! Ha! I think you are misunderstanding what Mormons are responding to. We are not in the pews of other churches (for the most part) listening to what is being said about us or reading literature produced by these churches to see what they say about us. But we do consume mainstream media sources and we notice what these secular sources have to say about us. During the 2002 Olympics and then during the Romney campaign the media had a lot to say about Mormons. Much of it was positive. But the issue of whether Mormons were Christians came up again and again. You cannot simply dismiss news that reaches millions of consumers as being anecdotal. When you get a news outlet telling the world you are a son of perdition, then we’ll be comparing apples and apples.
Stargazer Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, Anon the Great said: LDS tend not to read the Old Testament because the Book of Mormon says it is all fulfilled in 3 Nephi 12, contrary to Matthew 5-7. Says the man who is plainly unaware that the adult Sunday School curriculum this year was the Old Testament. In fact, it's been the annual curriculum every four years for the last few decades, if not longer. I've only been a member of the Church for the past 50 years, so it's possible that we only started doing that 51 years ago. I do wonder, however, do you tend to not know what you're talking about? Last Sunday in my ward, we discussed the book of Hosea. When was the last time you read it?
JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, Navidad said: I believe in your line of thinking, the Bible would be that source of authority. not the creeds. The creeds are authoritative for a small percentage of Protestants. The creeds are not where one would go to "convince the widest range of Christians." The Bible is where you would go. Oh come on. Just go to the Bible? That’s really your answer for appealing to a wide range of Christians? What could possibly go wrong?
Calm Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: I am not suggesting that their position on Mormons would be in their doctrinal statement. But certainly, if they believed that you must believe in this or that creed to be considered a Christian that would be in their statement of faith for sure. Quote You all are talking about anecdotal one-time incidents from this or that person. I I am myself also speaking of those who represented/worked for/published books intended for countercult ministries. Got paid for engaging with Latter-day Saints among others. Encounters were not one time events, but extended in some cases over the years, often daily, sometimes weekly or monthly for a few days.
JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Navidad said: My friend, anyone can make an argument out of anything. I am not interested in the ad-hoc anecdotal statement of this or that person. I don't usually drink out of old hats. So, if you all are saying, I met a Christian once who told me this or that; or here is an article that says this or that. Or I was in Temple Square one day and I really goofy guy told me I was going to Hell . . . Then I surrender. Of course you did and of course he said that. I would be silly to question that, and I don't. I am much more interested in what I thought you all were saying - that certain real live groups of Christians claim the creed or no Christianity. that is very different. Is it right then for me to get out my old hat and tell you everything an overly-zealous Saint has said to me and turn that into the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? You would howl in protest. I know he doesn't represent your faith, your doctrine, or your Church. I will read your four links and let you know what I find. I look forward to it; just getting a little tired tonight. Thanks. I apologize for pestering you on this. I know how exhausting it can be to debate what may seem to be the entire forum. But this NPR story clearly demonstrates what I’ve been talking about. Here we have a major news source proclaiming Mormons non-Christian. And they cite none other than Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and “one of the leading intellectuals in the evangelical Christian world.” https://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/576082548/deep-differences-remain-between-mormon-and-evangelical-communities 1
RevTestament Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 3 hours ago, Anon the Great said: LDS tend not to read the Old Testament because the Book of Mormon says it is all fulfilled in 3 Nephi 12, contrary to Matthew 5-7. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets in three places, so the Law is not all fulfilled till "heaven and earth pass away". Luke 2:23 references Exodus 13:11-16 about setting apart or separating the first born males out of the womb as a type and shadow of Christ having the POWER OF TRUTH to leave the ideas of the world, repent, and overcome Satan created in us. He separated the Israelites from Egypt by HIS POWER. Look for the word "sin" the theologians define as unholy in Exodus 13:11-16. The truth is we are SEPARATED from Yahweh for the creating us. He is eternal and Holy. We are mortals with dying bodies and unholy from that perspective. We have power in our bodies that runs out. He doesn't. Whether we sin or not, that is the truth. Therefore, Exodus 13 and Luke are talking about the Power of God to release us from sin by true repentance, reincarnation and translation, or resurrection. Sin is not the issue. The power of an eternal God over life and death is the message of the Bible, and not the message of a magic wand that forgives us without correct repentance. Mortals keep the golden rule and stop being a thief, which is easy to do. The Ten Tribes going North represents the meaning of the Ten Commandments that were twisted by the theologians that inhibit true repentance. Paul describes this error as the sorrowing of the world in false sorrow for sin, Jew and Gentile, because they live in the past and feel sorry about everything and never feel at peace because repentance has been twisted to pray to God and say, "I'm sorry, God", and then He forgives us with a magic wand because He holds grudges against us if we don't apologize to Him, when He has no grudges of the past: I do wish you would stop pretending to know what LDS Christians believe and do. I initially refused to engage you, because I knew it would involve correcting your every post. As has been pointed out to you, we study the OT every 4 years in adult Sunday School. Further, we do not believe the OT has all been fulfilled. Obviously, the Lord has not created a new earth and a new heaven like He says in Isaiah. Further, we are told by our Lord that "great are the words of Isaiah." Also, i am quite aware that the law is still being fulfilled - I would hazard much moreso than you - who probably thinks all the goats involve Yeshua's own sacrifice. I am sorry, but I am just unwilling to get into a theological debate with you, when we can't even get to first base together. Cheers
Spammer Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Stargazer said: I do appreciate all you've presented here, and it is very educational! But I'm clearly ill-equipped to deal in Patristics with anyone and so I shall leave off on trying, for the moment! I think I will familiarize myself with these writings -- my first dip into the pool, as it were, was most interesting; until now, I've never gone there and Against Heresies appears to be well worth the effort of reading. Time to study! Again, thanks! Indeed, it's well worth your time to delve into the early church fathers! No matter the view of God you hold, there are many spiritual treasures there. Irenaeus is a good place to start, though he can be a bit technical when he relates and refutes gnostic teaching. It will help to have some familiarity with Plato and Plotinus to grasp the system Irenaeus was trying to refute. After plowing through Against Heresies, maybe start with the seven letters of Ignatius, martyred bishop of Antioch, who was a friend of Polycarp. These are letters of encouragement and counsel that he wrote while he was been marched across what is now Turkey to his execution in the Roman Coliseum. He wrote letters to most of the same churches God spoke to through John in John's Apocalypse (Book of Revelation). You should also read Polycarp's letter to the church at Philippi and the account of his martyrdom (he was stabbed and burned at the stake). Also check out Justin Martyr’s two letters defending the Christian faith, which he sent to the Roman Emperor, and his Dialogue with Trypho. After Ireneaus, if you really want to go nuts, maybe check out the second century theological treatises of Origen and Clement of Alexandria; the 4th century (pre-Nicene) ‘On the Incarnation’ by Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene Orthodoxy (yes, we have something written by Athanasius before the Council); and the three 4th century (post-Nicene) Cappadocian fathers: Basil, bishop of Caesarea; his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; and Gregory of Nazianzus (called the Theologian by the Greek churches). If you want to read some fantastic sermons, you can check out the homilies of John Chrysostom (Greek for 'golden mouthed') and Peter Chrysologus (Greek for 'golden words'), late 4th/early 5th century archbishops of Constantinople and Ravenna, respectively. There's so much in the Patristic literature; those are only a few selections that pop into mind. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me and happy delving! Edited October 17, 2018 by Spammer 1
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Anon the Great said: My statement is true. I attended the Gospel Doctrine class for many years after the missionaries taught me the lessons several times to learn what the LDS teach today vs the past. I had read all the LDS standard works before I attended to compare what is taught in modern LDS scriptures, vs the Church, and vs the Bible. I developed my views based on observation and reasoning. The LDS tend not read the Old Testament to learn from the Lord directly, but the LDS receive approved manuals written by someone else in a paid position to create the "approved" paradigm boxes for them to believe. If the writers step out of the LDS boxes, then they will be fired from their paid position. All the GAs are paid nice salaries, especially those at the very top. In contrast, Paul made tents for a living. I have been completely quiet about my beliefs for 30 years until now. The LDS Church is moving in the right direction. The occult crickets are being deposited in the salt sea of the world's systems by the Holy Spirit sea gulls. During the Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher reads from the manual to the class and interprets the Old Testament within a structured curriculum, inviting questions from the class. Questions like, "Did the Son come from inside the mind of the Father?" are never speculated. Each teacher is different. In class, most of the members have not read the lesson assignment but just sit and listen to the teacher or find an LDS sources to explain it. The evidence suggests my writing is true, especially considering the fact that the Old Testament is seldom quoted in sacrament meeting. The OT ordinances of the first temple are not referenced or mentioned, either, unlike the books of Hebrews, Acts, and others in the New Testament do. Yes, a few members have read the Old Testament, but not many of these members study the "word meanings" in depth to understand it. You have created a misleading impression that the entire LDS Church reads and studies the Old Testament and prays to the Lord for its true meaning, when they do not. As one LDS Bishop told me, we don't have to do the thinking because the LDS authorities have already done the thinking for us. Amazing! Therefore, they learn from the LDS manuals, both good and bad ideas. My post is about the average members and not members like Nibley that are trusted like intellectual idols. I attended the Sunday meetings (and others) to observe the LDS teachings and practices to compare what is taught today vs the past. The LDS Church has changed by the Holy Spirit after the original founder started it. The changes are a good thing, not a bad thing. That being said, it is OK to defend your religion, and I am not offended at the accusations. It is your life, not mine. You are sooo clueless.... 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 hours ago, JarMan said: I apologize for pestering you on this. I know how exhausting it can be to debate what may seem to be the entire forum. But this NPR story clearly demonstrates what I’ve been talking about. Here we have a major news source proclaiming Mormons non-Christian. And they cite none other than Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and “one of the leading intellectuals in the evangelical Christian world.” https://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/576082548/deep-differences-remain-between-mormon-and-evangelical-communities The Southern Baptist Convention represents many evangelicals, but certainly not all. Among other evangelicals I've heard SBC referred to as a very hard line version of Protestantism. For example, I know many Methodists who left the SBC because of their dogma, so treating the SBC as representative is stretching things a bit, IMO. We've had Members of the CoJCoLdS on this board rejecting other Christians by claiming they aren't even "part" of the body of Christ, so it sounds fair to me. We reject them, they reject us. Sounds like a toxic relationship to me, but many Mormons seem to like it that way, just as I assume many SB also prefer the adversarial relationship.
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 14 hours ago, Navidad said: Thanks. I certainly don't care about their names. I will look at the link you provided in the morning. I believe by all of your responses that I am getting that I misunderstood. You all are talking about the same thing. This guy said that or this; not that a bonafide group of Protestants hold this as a belief or doctrine. That is what I was trying to figure out. Something like this from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? "QUESTION: Are Mormons generally regarded as Christians, and how do their beliefs differ from those of the Missouri Synod? ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is "of one substance with the Father." This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled "Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?" the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are "not ... one being" (21), but are "separate individuals." In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body "of flesh and bone" (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian. For more information about beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints read this document prepared by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations." https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/denominations#mormon There you see it: LDS being not counted as Christians because of not holding to the Creeds. 3
Gray Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 17 hours ago, Stargazer said: Yeah, it was those Mormunz's fault that they got thrown out of Missouri and Illinois, and their fault again that the US invaded Utah. Mormons were not just passive victims. They were often active perpetrators. Takes two to tango. But that doesn't mean violence is intrinsic to Mormonism, any more than it is intrinsic to Catholicism. 17 hours ago, Stargazer said: I was referring to the logical fallacy, not what you're talking about. You know, like the Nicene Council said so, therefore it is so. That kind of appeal to authority. It's still a logical fallacy no matter who uses it. 17 hours ago, Stargazer said: You're entitled to your opinion, of course. For that matter, I'm already well equipped to be a Jew. Mazel tov! 1
pogi Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Navidad said: If we go by sheer numbers, the majority of Protestants today are non-creedal. That is, they don't use creeds, aren't familiar with creeds, don't recite creeds and probably know very little about them. They never think about loyalty to a creed; their loyalty is to the Scripture, the Bible. It isn't that they may not agree with most of what is in this or that creed; it is that the whole concept of creeds is irrelevant. They just simply don't exist for many of us. So when someone like me hears Latter-day Saints claiming that they are in the doghouse for not following this or that creed, that is incredulous. I have said on this forum ten times that I know of no Protestant group that would say a faith that is non-creedal is non-Christian. The Saints tend to hold their non-creedal position as one reason why some Protestant groups deny them Christianity. That is just not something I have ever heard or seen in my years of ministering in Protestant churches and to Protestant groups. I disagree that the majority of Protestants are non-creedal. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed Even Southern baptists have confessions which are considered as "fundamental" beliefs which were deemed necessary because of heretical "naturalism" beliefs being taught in modern religion. It is true that Baptists don't consider their creeds as requirements to be considered Christian, but they are creeds none-the-less. Any Christian group who accepts the Athanasian creed does require belief in the trinity as a condition for Christianity. Some Baptists were not happy with the creeds, as Baptists have historically refused to adopt creeds or confessions, stating "the Bible is the sole source of doctrine and practice" (which is ironic because sola scriptura, along with all 5 sola's are pretty much creedal in nature - sola scriptura is also ironic because the idea is an extra-Biblical teaching and therefore contradicts it's own affirmation). I am really shocked that you have never met another protestant who believes that acceptance of creeds are required to be considered a Christian. I got in an a debate with an evangelical about a year ago on this very forum who told me I was not Christian because I did not accept the Athanasian Creed which outlines the Trinitarian doctrine and Christology of Catholocism and Protestantism. The creed literally condemns anyone who disagrees with the creed. See this link for the evangelical version of the Athanasian creed and the condemnation of all who disagree with it: http://www.branscome.org/athcreed.htm So, there are evangelicals who uphold this creed as "fundamental" and condemn those who reject it, including Latter-day Saints. I have personally experienced that condemnation first hand, so you can't tell me that most evangelicals are not creedal and don't condemn Latter-day Saints for not accepting their creeds. I would say that most are creedal, even if it is not emphasized in their practice. Quote Protestants all over the world share much Christian heritage with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers. All three groups accept the basic Biblical teachings as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is the only creed accepted by all three major branches of Christendom: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-protestant-churches-recite-apostles-creed-rejects-carrasquillo So there you go, we don't fit the creedal mold, therefore we are not Christian, according to some. This also ties into the following claim: On 10/16/2018 at 1:37 PM, Navidad said: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend through the historical line of traditional Christianity. That is, Latter-day Saints are not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Regarding #2 - I don't understand this one at all. Again, my particular faith group considers itself to be non-Catholic and non-Protestant. This is to a large degree because of the history of thousands of Mennonites being martyred by both groups. Can anyone provide some specific examples of #2 actually happening and by whom? Thanks so much. All of these groups generally descend from the Nicene Creed, as described by the Catholic website above. Latter-day Saints don't, therefore some Catholics consider us non-Christian for that reason. We are not under the umbrella of the Catholic church, whereas protestants are. Edited October 17, 2018 by pogi
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: The Southern Baptist Convention represents many evangelicals, but certainly not all. Among other evangelicals I've heard SBC referred to as a very hard line version of Protestantism. For example, I know many Methodists who left the SBC because of their dogma, so treating the SBC as representative is stretching things a bit, IMO. We've had Members of the CoJCoLdS on this board rejecting other Christians by claiming they aren't even "part" of the body of Christ, so it sounds fair to me. We reject them, they reject us. Sounds like a toxic relationship to me, but many Mormons seem to like it that way, just as I assume many SB also prefer the adversarial relationship. I was only using the SBC because of their size relative to other groups. The SBC has been evenly split between evangelicals and fundamentalists with a few mainstream folks sprinkled in here and there. 1
JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: The Southern Baptist Convention represents many evangelicals, but certainly not all. Among other evangelicals I've heard SBC referred to as a very hard line version of Protestantism. For example, I know many Methodists who left the SBC because of their dogma, so treating the SBC as representative is stretching things a bit, IMO. We've had Members of the CoJCoLdS on this board rejecting other Christians by claiming they aren't even "part" of the body of Christ, so it sounds fair to me. We reject them, they reject us. Sounds like a toxic relationship to me, but many Mormons seem to like it that way, just as I assume many SB also prefer the adversarial relationship. I'm simply making the argument that there are loud enough voices making the claim that it warrants a response from the church. @Navidad seems to be implying this whole exercise of responding to the creedal argument is a straw man. I point to the NPR article to support my argument--particularly since the implication is that all evangelicals should accept the position. At least that's what I read the description of Mohler as “one of the leading intellectuals in the evangelical Christian world” as saying.
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 48 minutes ago, Anon the Great said: What do you mean? You have no idea what you are talking about.
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: Something like this from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? "QUESTION: Are Mormons generally regarded as Christians, and how do their beliefs differ from those of the Missouri Synod? ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is "of one substance with the Father." This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled "Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?" the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are "not ... one being" (21), but are "separate individuals." In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body "of flesh and bone" (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian. For more information about beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints read this document prepared by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations." https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/denominations#mormon There you see it: LDS being not counted as Christians because of not holding to the Creeds. That is a great example, but you are misquoting it. It doesn't say anywhere that LDS are not counted as Christians because of not holding to the creeds. It says Mormons are not Christians because Mormonism denies (in their view) fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity. It then goes on to list several examples, one of which is taken from the Nicene Creed. They cite one thing as an example from the Nicene Creed, that is the only mention of the creed. I also reject an important part of the Nicene Creed; no one, based on that says I am not a Christian. I reject the statement about Baptism for remission of sin. If they were rejecting you because you disagreed with part of the Nicene Creed, it logically follows they would have to reject 40-50 million other fellow evangelicals as well. They don't I have preached in LCMS churches and colleges. The fact that I don't believe in baptism as salvific, contrary to the Nicene Creed never seemed to bother them. Having said all that I really appreciate how you all are taking the time to discuss and dialogue with me on this.
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: I disagree that the majority of Protestants are non-creedal. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed Even Southern baptists have confessions which are considered as "fundamental" beliefs which were deemed necessary because of heretical "naturalism" beliefs being taught in modern religion. It is true that Baptists don't consider their creeds as requirements to be considered Christian, but they are creeds none-the-less. Any Christian group who accepts the Athanasian creed does require belief in the trinity as a condition for Christianity. Some Baptists were not happy with the creeds, as Baptists have historically refused to adopt creeds or confessions, stating "the Bible is the sole source of doctrine and practice" (which is ironic because sola scriptura, along with all 5 sola's are pretty much creedal in nature - sola scriptura is also ironic because the idea is an extra-Biblical teaching and therefore contradicts it's own affirmation). I am really shocked that you have never met another protestant who believes that acceptance of creeds are required to be considered a Christian. I got in an a debate with an evangelical about a year ago on this very forum who told me I was not Christian because I did not accept the Athanasian Creed which outlines the Trinitarian doctrine and Christology of Catholocism and Protestantism. The creed literally condemns anyone who disagrees with the creed. See this link for the evangelical version of the Athanasian creed and the condemnation of all who disagree with it: http://www.branscome.org/athcreed.htm So, there are evangelicals who uphold this creed as "fundamental" and condemn those who reject it, including Latter-day Saints. I have personally experienced that condemnation first hand, so you can't tell me that most evangelicals are not creedal and don't condemn Latter-day Saints for not accepting their creeds. I would say that most are creedal, even if it is not emphasized in their practice. So there you go, we don't fit the creedal mold, therefore we are not Christian, according to some. This also ties into the following claim: All of these groups generally descend from the Nicene Creed, as described by the Catholic website above. Latter-day Saints don't, therefore some Catholics consider us non-Christian for that reason. We are not under the umbrella of the Catholic church, whereas protestants are. Now you've done it! I am gonna, without hesitation start telling you all what you believe! You all would be livid if I just did what you did. And using wikipedia as a primary source? And your last link is to a wacko fringe site that you call evangelical? Can't you tell that? You all really don't understand the distinctions between the various Protestant communities (not denominations - communities). Shall I quote LDS beliefs from the Tanner's site? I am sort of kind of smiling while i type this! You disagree that the majority of Protestants are non-creedal! By what data? Now I have to go through and work on the data for you. You aren't going to like the facts. I can't do it tonight and all day for the next two days I am traveling to speak to Protestant groups! Maybe you should take my place? Sorry, that was snarky, but it felt good typing it! But over the weekend coming up I will get you the exact numbers from Pew data on Protestants. I can't find a good emoticon for how I am feeling right now, so I won't end up with one. Edited October 17, 2018 by Navidad
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 35 minutes ago, JarMan said: I'm simply making the argument that there are loud enough voices making the claim that it warrants a response from the church. @Navidad seems to be implying this whole exercise of responding to the creedal argument is a straw man. I point to the NPR article to support my argument--particularly since the implication is that all evangelicals should accept the position. At least that's what I read the description of Mohler as “one of the leading intellectuals in the evangelical Christian world” as saying. As it relates to Protestant groups, it is a straw man. That is a wonderful descriptor; the only better one I can think of is a "red herring" - chase the creed instead of acknowledging the perceived heterodox theology as the primary and perhaps only causal agent. Chasing the creeds helps you to avoid looking at your own beliefs for how they are perceived by many - heterodox.
pogi Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Navidad said: Now you've done it! I am gonna, without hesitation start telling you all what you believe! You all would be livid if I just did what you did. And using wikipedia as a primary source? And your last link is to a wacko fringe site? Can't you tell that? Shall I quote LDS beliefs from the Tanner's site? I am sort of kind of smiling while i type this! You disagree that the majority of Protestants are non-creedal! By what data? Now I have to go through and work on the data for you. You aren't going to like the facts. I can't do it tonight and all day for the next two days I am traveling to speak to Protestant groups! Maybe you should take my place? Sorry, that was snarky, but it felt good typing it! But over the weekend coming up I will get you the exact numbers from Pew data on Protestants. I can't find a good emoticon for how I am feeling right now, so I won't end up with one. Just to clarify, I am NOT telling you what you believe. I am telling you what I have encountered from other Evangelicals personally. The encounter happened on this very site and can be verified in it's history. I will try to find it if you insist. I know that misererenobis was a part of that conversation, he can back me up on this. I know that some evangelicals do accept the Athanesian creed (Lutheran's for sure). Also, just to jab back at you - you are getting mad at me for speaking for other churches (which I am not), but aren't you doing the same thing by pretending to speak for all protestant organizations? Based on the data in the wikepidia article, I would say most protestant churches have creeds, even if they are not recognized and recited by the lay members, or emphasized strongly. Wikipedia is not all bad. It can be convenient at times. Just to verify, are you saying that the following information from the link is bogus? Quote Christian creeds[edit] Main article: List of Christian creeds Several creeds have originated in Christianity. 1 Corinthians 15, 3–7 includes an early creed about Jesus' death and resurrection which was probably received by Paul. The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[5] The Old Roman Creed is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles' Creed. It was based on the 2nd century Rules of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving baptism, which by the 4th century was everywhere tripartite in structure, following Matthew 28:19. The Apostles' Creed is widely used by most Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes. The Nicene Creed reflects the concerns of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 which had as their chief purpose to establish what Christians believed.[6] The Chalcedonian Creed was adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in Asia Minor. It defines that Christ is 'acknowledged in two natures', which 'come together into one person and hypostasis'. The Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult) is a Christian statement of belief focusing on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology. It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated and differs from the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds in the inclusion of anathemas, or condemnations of those who disagree with the Creed. The Tridentine Creed was initially contained in the papal bull Iniunctum Nobis, issued by Pope Pius IV on November 13, 1565. The creed was intended to summarize the teaching of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). The Maasai Creed is a creed composed in 1960 by the Maasai people of East Africa in collaboration with missionaries from the Congregation of the Holy Ghost. The creed attempts to express the essentials of the Christian faith within the Maasai culture. The Credo of the People of God is a profession of faith that Pope Paul VI published with the motu proprio Solemni hac liturgia of 30 June 1968. Pope Paul VI spoke of it as "a profession of faith, ... a creed which, without being strictly speaking a dogmatic definition, repeats in substance, with some developments called for by the spiritual condition of our time, the creed of Nicea, the creed of the immortal tradition of the holy Church of God." Christian confessions of faith[edit] Protestant denominations are usually associated with confessions of faith, which are similar to creeds but usually longer. The Sixty-seven Articles of the Swiss reformers, drawn up by Zwingli in 1523; The Schleitheim Confession of the Anabaptist Swiss Brethren drawn up in 1527 – (being Anabaptist, this confession was not Protestant in the usual sense); The Augsburg Confession of 1530, the work of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, which marked the breach with Rome; The Tetrapolitan Confession of the German Reformed Church, 1530; The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther, 1537 The Guanabara Confession of Faith, 1558, the first Protestant writing in the Americas. By the martyr French Huguenots Jean du Bourdel, Matthieu Verneuil, Pierre Bourdon and André la Fon at the site of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Gallic Confession, 1559; The Scots Confession, drawn up by John Knox in 1560; The Belgic Confession[7] drawn up by Guido de Bres[8] in 1561; The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England in 1562; The Formula of Concord and its Epitome in 1577; The Irish Articles in 1615; The Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 was the work of the Westminster Assembly of Divines and has commended itself to the Presbyterian Churches of all English-speaking peoples, and also in other languages. The Savoy Declaration[9] of 1658 which was a modification of the Westminster Confession to suit Congregationalist polity; The Baptist Confession of 1689 which had much in common with the Westminster Confession, but differed from it on a number of distinctions held important by the English Calvinistic Baptists; The Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists (Presbyterians) of Wales[10] of 1823. The Confession of Faith of the United Methodist Church, adopted in 1968 Edited October 17, 2018 by pogi
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: That is a great example, but you are misquoting it. It doesn't say anywhere that LDS are not counted as Christians because of not holding to the creeds. It says Mormons are not Christians because Mormonism denies (in their view) fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity. It then goes on to list several examples, one of which is taken from the Nicene Creed. They cite one thing as an example from the Nicene Creed, that is the only mention of the creed. You and I are getting very different messages reading the same document. Here's how I'm reading it, just to help share perspectives. LCMS is in black, my thoughts blue--- "QUESTION: Are Mormons generally regarded as Christians, and how do their beliefs differ from those of the Missouri Synod? ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. Ok, LCMS thinks Mormons aren’t Christians. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. How are you defining “orthodox Christianity”? For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is "of one substance with the Father." This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. So “orthodox Christianity” is defined as abiding by the Nicene Creed and ratifying the statements therein. Not the Bible alone (because the Bible doesn’t say anything about the substance of God), but the Nicene Creed. In a chapter titled "Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?" the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are "not ... one being" (21), but are "separate individuals." Again, must abide by the Creeds. The Bible doesn’t say any of this person/being stuff. In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body "of flesh and bone" (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian. This one I give a bit more leeway about. The matter is question here is interpretation of John 4:24, and the disagreement about that. Which yes, we disagree about it, but at least there is a verse in the Bible to talk about with this, as opposed to the earlier subjects, which don’t even have verses to talk about. That's just how things come off to my reading. Not telling anyone what they believe, just what my impressions are reading this. 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I also reject an important part of the Nicene Creed; no one, based on that says I am not a Christian. I reject the statement about Baptism for remission of sin. If they were rejecting you because you disagreed with part of the Nicene Creed, it logically follows they would have to reject 40-50 million other fellow evangelicals as well. They don't I have preached in LCMS churches and colleges. The fact that I don't believe in baptism as salvific, contrary to the Nicene Creed never seemed to bother them. Having said all that I really appreciate how you all are taking the time to discuss and dialogue with me on this. The fact that they reject us on this basis but not the 40-50 million other folks shows the duel standard they are using. Edited October 17, 2018 by Jane_Doe 2
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 Good late afternoon all. I would be very remiss if I didn't make a comment about my activities of the last 48 hours, besides being on this board, that is! We have a wonderful group of LDS-Christian eye doctors (surgeons, ophthalmologists, optometrists, and nurses) here in our area, ministering to the physical needs of the older and poorer folks here. I chatted with some of them at church on Sunday. They then came to our home as a group on Sunday afternoon and spent several hours with my wife and me. We mostly chatted about the Mennonites of our area and the similarities and differences between Mormons and Mennonites, and yes, other Protestants. They are a Godly, sincere and wonderful group. No one could sit there, listen to them and not believe they are Christians. Getting to know folks from the "other side" is the way to break down barriers. I know of no better way. We then re-connected with them today and watched them work with the folks, even as they operated. It was a joy and a delight and touched our hearts. A member of our ward has a ministry to disabled children in our area. He coordinated their work and invited us to meet with them again today. Why would an LDS leader in our area, former bishop and stake president ask two non-LDS Christians to join a group of LDS volunteer eye specialists and spend so much time together? We spent hours with them. It was a joy! We had lunch and prayed together and all of a sudden we weren't Saints and Gentiles, we weren't those with authority and those without, we weren't those with a true priesthood and those with a fraudulent one; we weren't heterodox and orthodox; we weren't those with wrong beliefs and those with right beliefs; we weren't even two non-creedal groups sharing with each other. So what were we? We were a group of Christian brothers and sisters (not in the pre-mortal spirit sense) but in the "we share a common savior, a common commitment to mission and have a common love for our Heavenly Father and a burden for those who are suffering" sense. It was wonderful. We shared a sense of the Holy Spirit in our midst. I know I can't speak for them; but I can certainly tell you how it seemed to me. I came home on a high. I turned on the computer, stared at probably 20 messages in this thread and dug in. Within a few messages I was brought down to earth. So here I sit a bit saddened. I offered my perspective and beliefs about my own people (Protestants and evangelicals) and I find myself facing a mob. I am tired of parsing my words so as not to hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone on this board. I didn't try and tell you what LDS Christians think; I offered you what I know people of my own faith think. And guess what, from the responses it appears I offended you anyway! Why would you want to win a debate on what Protestants and evangelicals believe about creeds, creedalism, and especially about Mormons? For the life of me I can't figure that out. Why do you need to believe what you believe about creeds and Protestants and their perspectives of Mormons? Why do you need to make so much about creeds and creedalism? It must be a need because you have worked very hard at convincing me I am wrong about what I know I am right about? It is beyond me. I promise you I read every single website whose link you shared with me. Of the nine of them only one represented a real live Protestant group; not an individual's ideas. None of them said anywhere in their text that those who don't believe in creeds are not Christian. And the one site that represented a real live group, the Missouri Synod Lutherans used one example from the Nicene Creed and then went on to four or five other examples from other sources. While I appreciated the links and the sites, what I think you did was "eisegete" them not "exegete" them. You built your own meaning "into" them to validate your point and didn't take from their verbiage and draw conclusions "from" them. I think it is so vitally important that our two sides understand each other and what the other really believes. It is so important that we get it right. Well, I think that because I believe that it makes God cry when his children bicker and say horrible things about each other. I think God is not easily offended, but I believe because of His big heart for all his children I believe He is easily saddened. I have saddened Him in my overall time on this board and I think some of the things some of you have said to and about me have saddened him. I am almost ready to come to the conclusion that you simply don't want to be part of the tree of Christianity so I just need to give up the mission and vision I have of bringing us together through self-understanding. Notice I didn't say through understanding the other. Until we examine ourselves we are nowhere. Certainly Mormonism (sorry, I am just not at a good place to parse words) plays its role in sharing responsibility for the divide that is unique between it and much of Christianity. Certainly Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and those who fall in-between those categories, like me, share responsibility for the divide. It is too wide a divide. It doesn't honor God, how we each pick at each other. I've got a secret; my real name is Jedidiah Grant and I am calling for a reformation in Latter-day Saints attitudes, biases, and prejudices against the rest of the Christian world. No, I am Billy Sunday and I call for a revival in the Protestant community and a change in their attitudes, biases, and prejudices against the Latter-day Saint world. No, not really . . . I am just me. Calling for us to be like Dr. Snow leading an old blind Mexican lady today down the hall to have her eyes opened and to receive sight, so she can have vision about what might be. No, not really . . . I am just Navidad . . . a guy named after the Spanish word for the entry of the Savior into the world to bring light and life and sight to a lost world. I am really nobody. I just so want to see us come together as the family of God. . . not hung up on our authority, or our orthodoxy, or our pride in being the "other," or our pride in being the "one and only" or any of that. I am tired. I want to go back to where I was at lunch. Grasping hands with my brother and sister Christians grateful for opportunities to serve those who have truly lost their sight. . . not debating with either my Protestant or LDS brothers who just don't want to see.
Jane_Doe Posted October 18, 2018 Posted October 18, 2018 8 minutes ago, Navidad said: Good late afternoon all. I would be very remiss if I didn't make a comment about my activities of the last 48 hours, besides being on this board, that is! We have a wonderful group of LDS-Christian eye doctors (surgeons, ophthalmologists, optometrists, and nurses) here in our area, ministering to the physical needs of the older and poorer folks here. I chatted with some of them at church on Sunday. They then came to our home as a group on Sunday afternoon and spent several hours with my wife and me. We mostly chatted about the Mennonites of our area and the similarities and differences between Mormons and Mennonites, and yes, other Protestants. They are a Godly, sincere and wonderful group. No one could sit there, listen to them and not believe they are Christians. Getting to know folks from the "other side" is the way to break down barriers. I know of no better way. We then re-connected with them today and watched them work with the folks, even as they operated. It was a joy and a delight and touched our hearts. A member of our ward has a ministry to disabled children in our area. He coordinated their work and invited us to meet with them again today. Why would an LDS leader in our area, former bishop and stake president ask two non-LDS Christians to join a group of LDS volunteer eye specialists and spend so much time together? We spent hours with them. It was a joy! We had lunch and prayed together and all of a sudden we weren't Saints and Gentiles, we weren't those with authority and those without, we weren't those with a true priesthood and those with a fraudulent one; we weren't heterodox and orthodox; we weren't those with wrong beliefs and those with right beliefs; we weren't even two non-creedal groups sharing with each other. So what were we? We were a group of Christian brothers and sisters (not in the pre-mortal spirit sense) but in the "we share a common savior, a common commitment to mission and have a common love for our Heavenly Father and a burden for those who are suffering" sense. It was wonderful. Thumbs up!!! 8 minutes ago, Navidad said: And guess what, from the responses it appears I offended you anyway! Speaking for me, I'm not offended here at all. Not remotely. @Navidad, I hear you on Christians from different groups working together on things, hand in hand, truly listening & respecting each other. That is my dream too. It is what I strive for. Yes, I happily acknowledge the real Christian life many non-LDS folks walk and celebrate it. I in no way recent folks that believe the Creeds. None at all. I thoroughly respect your right to believe as you do. Such respect is a HUGE deal to me. And if any of that has not been thoroughly communicated over the course of our conversations, than my words have majorly failed. Partially because respect and working together are such HUGE deals for me, I'm not a fan of the opposite: when people who draw lines in the sand, deny other's relationships with Christ, and otherwise shut down that respect/fellowship. I'm happy to work as a sibling in faith with a LCMS person/institution-- totally happy about it! But the LCMS institution shuts that down. And yes, that does hurt. It hurts me personally, but more importantly it makes me sad because I see the many great things we could build together- things which aren't going to happen because of LCMS's stance. I'll still keep trying: reaching my hand out. And yes, many many times it'll get slapped away and I'll hurt again & again but.... Hope is a funny thing. Hope for that dream where siblings in Christ and work together and respect each other. And that hope... I suppose the reason I can't give it up is because it's so closely tied into my hope/faith for Christ Himself.
Navidad Posted October 18, 2018 Author Posted October 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: Thumbs up!!! Speaking for me, I'm not offended here at all. Not remotely. @Navidad, I hear you on Christians from different groups working together on things, hand in hand, truly listening & respecting each other. That is my dream too. It is what I strive for. Yes, I happily acknowledge the real Christian life many non-LDS folks walk and celebrate it. I in no way recent folks that believe the Creeds. None at all. I thoroughly respect your right to believe as you do. Such respect is a HUGE deal to me. And if any of that has not been thoroughly communicated over the course of our conversations, than my words have majorly failed. Partially because respect and working together are such HUGE deals for me, I'm not a fan of the opposite: when people who draw lines in the sand, deny other's relationships with Christ, and otherwise shut down that respect/fellowship. I'm happy to work as a sibling in faith with a LCMS person/institution-- totally happy about it! But the LCMS institution shuts that down. And yes, that does hurt. It hurts me personally, but more importantly it makes me sad because I see the many great things we could build together- things which aren't going to happen because of LCMS's stance. I'll still keep trying: reaching my hand out. And yes, many many times it'll get slapped away and I'll hurt again & again but.... Hope is a funny thing. Hope for that dream where siblings in Christ and work together and respect each other. And that hope... I suppose the reason I can't give it up is because it's so closely tied into my hope/faith for Christ Himself. Hi Jane: Thanks for you reply. I hope you can see how the LDS, not just the LCMS shut it down. When the LDS deny my authority, deny my priesthood, deny my baptism it "does hurt. It hurts me personally, but more importantly it makes me sad because I see the many great things we could build together - thing which aren't going to happen because of LDS's stance. I'll still keep trying: reaching my hand out. and yes, many many times it'll get slapped away and I'll hurt again & again.....can you not accept that the responsibility is mutual? I feel all the things you feel. This challenge is not one-sided. It has never been . . . ever! Blessings.
Jane_Doe Posted October 18, 2018 Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Jane: Thanks for you reply. I hope you can see how the LDS, not just the LCMS shut it down. When the LDS deny my authority, deny my priesthood, deny my baptism it "does hurt. It hurts me personally, but more importantly it makes me sad because I see the many great things we could build together - thing which aren't going to happen because of LDS's stance. I'll still keep trying: reaching my hand out. and yes, many many times it'll get slapped away and I'll hurt again & again.....can you not accept that the responsibility is mutual? I feel all the things you feel. This challenge is not one-sided. It has never been . . . ever! Blessings. If the only thing being done by LCMS was a disagreement on baptismal/priesthood authority, I frankly wouldn't care. But it's not. Sorry about my bluntness here, but you're trying to compare: A) disagreements of priesthood authority but still being happy to embrace you as a fellow Christian and work with you. VS: B) completely denying that a person as any relationship with Christ at all- let alone validly baptized or having any priesthood authority. No basic recnogition as a Christian, no working together, zero fellowship, and sometimes active descrimiation. That is not remotely comparable nor 'both sides are equally guilty' thing. Again, I wouldn't remotely care if the only thing being done by LCMS was disagreement on baptismal authority. Edited October 18, 2018 by Jane_Doe 2
Navidad Posted October 18, 2018 Author Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: If the only thing being done by LCMS was a disagreement on baptismal/priesthood authority, I frankly wouldn't care. But it's not. Sorry about my bluntness here, but you're trying to compare: A) disagreements of priesthood authority but still being happy to embrace you as a fellow Christian and work with you. VS: B) completely denying that a person as any relationship with Christ at all- let alone validly baptized or having any priesthood authority. No basic recnogition as a Christian, no working together, zero fellowship, and sometimes active descrimiation. That is not remotely comparable nor 'both sides are equally guilty' thing. Again, I wouldn't remotely care if the only thing being done by LCMS was disagreement on baptismal authority. I am trying to help you understand the pain and sadness I feel because I have no basic recognition from your hierarchy as a Christian (my baptism and confirmation was fraudulent - I am only a spirit child brother), some working together, zero fellowship as a Christian brother, because I'm not, and sometimes active discrimination - welcome to my world! Let's add zero potential to access Heavenly Father without LDS ordinances. Let's add no indwelling of the Holy Ghost without LDS baptism and confirmation. Once again I must insist that some individual Protestants and the formal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the majority of Latter-day Saints are equally as intolerant. I acknowledge it from my folks; why can't you acknowledge it from yours? Until you do, all of Missouri, Illinois, the Utah war, the Mexican exodus, and my sense of abandonment by my fellow LDS Christians will always and forever be the Gentile's fault. Certainly, because of doctrinal differences, many if not most on each side reject the other. How do we begin defusing that? Do we just give up? I am working hard at it, even this very weekend coming up. You would have me comparing apples and oranges; I believe I am comparing apples to apples - the Latter-day Saints for the life of them, can't and won't see it. I am lost. LDS Christians simply seem to me to have no empathy for the very same thing they so deplore. Edited October 18, 2018 by Navidad 1
Recommended Posts