Do the majority of members of the Latter-day Saints Church want to be known as Christians?

[theplains]

On 10/14/2018 at 7:56 PM, Stargazer said:

Whether we believe that the Father hasn't always been that way, as opposed to the belief that he always has been that way, what kind of difference does it make? 

It's the difference between teaching a false god as opposed to the true God.

Jim

[Stargazer]

On 10/19/2018 at 3:28 PM, theplains said:

It's the difference between teaching a false god as opposed to the true God.

Jim

Of course.  But does God demand that you understand and believe in the God of the Nicene Creed before you can be saved?  What I've noticed is that all you need (from the Evangelical POV) is to accept Christ as your personal savior.  Are you trying to introduce an additional requirement?

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course.  But does God demand that you understand and believe in the God of the Nicene Creed before you can be saved?  What I've noticed is that all you need (from the Evangelical POV) is to accept Christ as your personal savior.  Are you trying to introduce an additional requirement?

I totally understand where you're coming from with this and I'm not totally sure I've come to a conclusion. But I'll just share a brief analogy to maybe help show why accepting the "right" Jesus would be important for salvation, instead of believing in a counterfeit Jesus.

Imagine you're on a scavenger hunt in downtown LA and the only requirement to move on to the next phase is you must get a selfie with Hugh Jackman. Fortunately, you find who you think is Hugh Jackman. He looks exactly the same and he has an Australian accent. So you snap your selfie, very pleased that you will be moving on to the next phase of the scavenger hunt. You submit your photo but it's not accepted by those running the scavenger hunt. You can't understand why. He looks like Hugh Jackman. He sounds like Hugh Jackman...but it turns out it is NOT Hugh Jackman. Despite the similarities you found a counterfeit Hugh Jackman, therefore you do not advance in the scavenger hunt.

Likewise, if a certain Christian takes it upon himself to declare whether or not you or I found the REAL Jesus and not just some counterfeit, and decides our Jesus is a false Christ, then it makes sense that the person would think that we were not really saved because we believed in a false Christ, despite the seeming similarities.

The real question becomes, why do we care whether another person (or even an organization/church) accepts our salvation. It doesn't really matter. But some evangelicals do just that. So does the Mormon church; declaring who has true faith in Christ and is truly on the path of salvation/exaltation, and who is not. Our church even goes so far as to say what families are real and which are counterfeit. At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally understand where you're coming from with this and I'm not totally sure I've come to a conclusion. But I'll just share a brief analogy to maybe help show why accepting the "right" Jesus would be important for salvation, instead of believing in a counterfeit Jesus.

Jesus was never recorded as saying anything about which Jesus needed to be believed in to be saved.  

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Imagine you're on a scavenger hunt in downtown LA and the only requirement to move on to the next phase is you must get a selfie with Hugh Jackman. Fortunately, you find who you think is Hugh Jackman. He looks exactly the same and he has an Australian accent. So you snap your selfie, very pleased that you will be moving on to the next phase of the scavenger hunt. You submit your photo but it's not accepted by those running the scavenger hunt. You can't understand why. He looks like Hugh Jackman. He sounds like Hugh Jackman...but it turns out it is NOT Hugh Jackman. Despite the similarities you found a counterfeit Hugh Jackman, therefore you do not advance in the scavenger hunt.

Great about the scavenger hunt.  I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to Jesus, do you think he will reject people because they didn't properly understand or comprehend what the Nicene Father's said about him?  LittleNipper says that Peter and Paul both believed in the Nicene Creed -- obviously not literally since the NC came later, but he claims that the trinity as expressed by the NC was what they believed.  A fine piece of posthumous mind-reading!

If it were so freaking important that one's very salvation depends upon it, how on earth could God have failed to make the NC doctrine very very clear in the New Testament?  It's inexcusable, don't you think?

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Likewise, if a certain Christian takes it upon himself to declare whether or not you or I found the REAL Jesus and not just some counterfeit, and decides our Jesus is a false Christ, then it makes sense that the person would think that we were not really saved because we believed in a false Christ, despite the seeming similarities.

The real question becomes, why do we care whether another person (or even an organization/church) accepts our salvation. It doesn't really matter. But some evangelicals do just that. So does the Mormon church; declaring who has true faith in Christ and is truly on the path of salvation/exaltation, and who is not. Our church even goes so far as to say what families are real and which are counterfeit. At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God.

Who is the REAL Jesus?  The one described in the New Testament.  I had an evangelical friend who was black.  HIS Jesus was pictured on his wall.  HIS Jesus was black.  So, was he a believer in some counterfeit Jesus?  Apparently.

Not.

The Jesus of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same Jesus of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Whether they imagine him to be that being described in the Nicene Creed, or not, is immaterial.  Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ.  Some may believe that you have to believe in the Nicene Jesus to be saved -- but some of the same people who say this are the ones who say all you need to to believe and accept.  

It's another question whether authority is crucial or not.  

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally understand where you're coming from with this and I'm not totally sure I've come to a conclusion. But I'll just share a brief analogy to maybe help show why accepting the "right" Jesus would be important for salvation, instead of believing in a counterfeit Jesus.

Imagine you're on a scavenger hunt in downtown LA and the only requirement to move on to the next phase is you must get a selfie with Hugh Jackman. Fortunately, you find who you think is Hugh Jackman. He looks exactly the same and he has an Australian accent. So you snap your selfie, very pleased that you will be moving on to the next phase of the scavenger hunt. You submit your photo but it's not accepted by those running the scavenger hunt. You can't understand why. He looks like Hugh Jackman. He sounds like Hugh Jackman...but it turns out it is NOT Hugh Jackman. Despite the similarities you found a counterfeit Hugh Jackman, therefore you do not advance in the scavenger hunt.

Likewise, if a certain Christian takes it upon himself to declare whether or not you or I found the REAL Jesus and not just some counterfeit, and decides our Jesus is a false Christ, then it makes sense that the person would think that we were not really saved because we believed in a false Christ, despite the seeming similarities.

The real question becomes, why do we care whether another person (or even an organization/church) accepts our salvation. It doesn't really matter. But some evangelicals do just that. So does the Mormon church; declaring who has true faith in Christ and is truly on the path of salvation/exaltation, and who is not. Our church even goes so far as to say what families are real and which are counterfeit. At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God.

This is a good post. I am curious however, how you define a "false Christ?" It is easy to understand your comparison to Hugh Jackman (who I thought was great in the Les Miserables movie). It is either him or it is not. I can't think of such a simplistic determination for a false Christ. Also I would be really impressed if your conclusion sentence said. "At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God; also we have to discard what we say about others, what we say about what they say and believe and simply trust God." Now, that would be progress. When you reject the Christology of 99.4% of the rest of Christianity are you doing the same thing you say "some Evangelicals" do? I think that may part of your point?

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Jesus was never recorded as saying anything about which Jesus needed to be believed in to be saved.  

Great about the scavenger hunt.  I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to Jesus, do you think he will reject people because they didn't properly understand or comprehend what the Nicene Father's said about him?  LittleNipper says that Peter and Paul both believed in the Nicene Creed -- obviously not literally since the NC came later, but he claims that the trinity as expressed by the NC was what they believed.  A fine piece of posthumous mind-reading!

If it were so freaking important that one's very salvation depends upon it, how on earth could God have failed to make the NC doctrine very very clear in the New Testament?  It's inexcusable, don't you think?

Who is the REAL Jesus?  The one described in the New Testament.  I had an evangelical friend who was black.  HIS Jesus was pictured on his wall.  HIS Jesus was black.  So, was he a believer in some counterfeit Jesus?  Apparently.

Not.

The Jesus of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same Jesus of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Whether they imagine him to be that being described in the Nicene Creed, or not, is immaterial.  Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ.  Some may believe that you have to believe in the Nicene Jesus to be saved -- but some of the same people who say this are the ones who say all you need to to believe and accept.  

It's another question whether authority is crucial or not.  

Back to the NIcene Creed again. I have some data to show you all later this morning. I don't believe in the entire Nicene Creed any more than you do. I agree with most of it, as you do; not with all of it. More later.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This is a good post. I am curious however, how you define a "false Christ?" It is easy to understand your comparison to Hugh Jackman (who I thought was great in the Les Miserables movie). It is either him or it is not. I can't think of such a simplistic determination for a false Christ. Also I would be really impressed if your conclusion sentence said. "At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God; also we have to discard what we say about others, what we say about what they say and believe and simply trust God." Now, that would be progress. When you reject the Christology of 99.4% of the rest of Christianity are you doing the same thing you say "some Evangelicals" do? I think that may part of your point?

Absolutely. Mormons do the exact thing they accuse evangelicals of doing.

I like your addition to my closing sentence. I totally agree.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Jesus was never recorded as saying anything about which Jesus needed to be believed in to be saved.  

Which Jesus never said anything about which Jesus needed to be believed to be saved?  

Great about the scavenger hunt.  I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to Jesus, do you think he will reject people because they didn't properly understand or comprehend what the Nicene Father's said about him?  LittleNipper says that Peter and Paul both believed in the Nicene Creed -- obviously not literally since the NC came later, but he claims that the trinity as expressed by the NC was what they believed.  A fine piece of posthumous mind-reading!

Absolutely not. I don't think Jesus will reject people who don't accept the NC, just as I don't think Jesus will reject people who don't accept the Articles of Faith or the restoration movement. In the Lectures on Faith Joseph clearly states that it is essential for a person to have an accurate understanding of the attributes of God to truly have faith in Him. So Mormons really take the same general approach as the Evangelicals, both believing that it's important to accurately know God, and not some counterfeit version.

If it were so freaking important that one's very salvation depends upon it, how on earth could God have failed to make the NC doctrine very very clear in the New Testament?  It's inexcusable, don't you think?

One could ask the same question about Temple work, no? But a Mormon might respond that we have additional scripture, beyond the NT. True. So I would assume we would find very clearly expressed doctrine about temples and ordinances in the BoM, PoGP, or D&C. Nope. Nothing there either.

Who is the REAL Jesus?  The one described in the New Testament.  I had an evangelical friend who was black.  HIS Jesus was pictured on his wall.  HIS Jesus was black.  So, was he a believer in some counterfeit Jesus?  Apparently.

It seems everyone believes their Jesus is the real Jesus. I once approached our local ministerial alliance about our church participating with them in ecumenical events to accomplish common goals. I was denied because they said we believed in a different Jesus. So I bore testimony of the virgin birth, the life, mission, suffering, death, resurrection of Jesus to show that I believed in the same NT Jesus they did. They rejected me and the church because I believed Jesus was literally the Son of God, and not God the Father. Their understanding of deity was narrow enough that they wouldn't listen or try to understand, or accept differences. It really bothered me at the time, but it later occurred to me that as a church, we essentially do the same thing to Evangelicals in some ways.

Not.

The Jesus of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same Jesus of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Whether they imagine him to be that being described in the Nicene Creed, or not, is immaterial.  Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ.  Some may believe that you have to believe in the Nicene Jesus to be saved -- but some of the same people who say this are the ones who say all you need to to believe and accept.  

You can say that, and I may agree, but that doesn't mean members of the RCC, Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox members must agree. Going back to the Hugh Jackman analogy, they may believe that we think we believe in the same Jesus and simply can't see that our Jesus is a false, counterfeit version of the true God.

It's another question whether authority is crucial or not.  

 

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Back to the NIcene Creed again. I have some data to show you all later this morning. I don't believe in the entire Nicene Creed any more than you do. I agree with most of it, as you do; not with all of it. More later.

Sorry, but I've been away for a week, and someone responded to something I wrote last week. So I replied.  If it bothers you that I bring up the Nicene thing, I apologize, but when someone complains that we worship a different Jesus, it necessarily involves the NC, because it involves the Trinity.  Why else would evangelicals moan and groan about Mormons and our "different Jesus"?  We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons, forming one God, i.e. the Godhead.  This is different from the "classical" Trinity -- which again, is described in the NC -- making our "different Jesus" inescapably about the NC.  

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

It's important to understand who Christ is to have faith in Him.  But I would never say that the Pope's failure to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate personages forming the Godhead makes it impossible for him to have faith in Christ.  It might be better if he understood Christ correctly, but ...

I never said that the RCC, Lutherans or Orthodox must agree with us.  Or that they must accept us as Christians even though they believe that the Godhead has a different structure from our belief.  They can do as they want.  Doesn't make them right, however.

Your experience with your local protestant minister is sad.  But typical.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Stargazer

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's important to understand who Christ is to have faith in Him.  But I would never say that the Pope's failure to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate personages forming the Godhead makes it impossible for him to have faith in Christ.  It might be better if he understood Christ correctly, but ...

I never said that the RCC, Lutherans or Orthodox must agree with us.  Or that they must accept us as Christians even though they believe that the Godhead has a different structure from our belief.  They can do as they want.  Doesn't make them right, however.

Your experience with your local protestant minister is sad.  But typical.

You might not, but others in the church would.

It was only a couple of weeks ago on this board where a few faithful members were arguing that Christians outside of the LDS church are not a part of the Body of Christ, essentially saying they weren't truly Christian. I recognize there is a slight difference there, but I think the intent of creating an Us versus them, in/out identity is the same. I think it's all silliness/rudeness/arrogance, whether coming from the LDS church, Evangelicals, Catholics...whoever.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry, but I've been away for a week, and someone responded to something I wrote last week. So I replied.  If it bothers you that I bring up the Nicene thing, I apologize, but when someone complains that we worship a different Jesus, it necessarily involves the NC, because it involves the Trinity.  Why else would evangelicals moan and groan about Mormons and our "different Jesus"?  We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons, forming one God, i.e. the Godhead.  This is different from the "classical" Trinity -- which again, is described in the NC -- making our "different Jesus" inescapably about the NC.  

It doesn't bother me to bring up the Nicene Creed. I don't mean to give that impression. When someone says Peter and Paul believed in the Nicene Creed, that is just silly. It would be more accurate to say Peter and Paul believed in the tenets, the main points of what eventually became the Nicene Creed, not in the creed itself. As I have said I don't believe in all the points of the Nicene Creed because I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. I also don't believe in LDS baptismal regeneration or some Lutheran's baptismal regeneration. A clear majority of Protestants don't believe in baptismal regeneration. I, also don't believe Peter and Paul believed in baptismal regeneration, but please I don't want to argue that here or anywhere else. I have no, zero, nada need to convince anyone about that. I think sometimes and I say this respectfully some folks here confuse the Nicene Creed with the tenets of the Nicene Creed. If I were writing the Creed, I would eliminate the baptismal regeneration part and would add a part on being Christ-like - humble, a peacemaker, etc. Believing in all or most of the tenets of the Nicene Creed is very different than "following the creed as a document." If we go there we have to then debate about which Nicene Creed, which other creeds? All of that is irrelevant to your Christianity as it is to mine.

The second thing I think gets confused on this forum quite regularly is the difference between Evangelicals and Protestants. They are used synonymously and simultaneously. I think it would help inter-faith dialogue so much if the Saints would take a little more time to learn and pay more attention to the differences and nuances between fundamentalists, evangelicals, mainstream, and Pentecostal Protestants, especially as the terms are used today. There are elements of all four groups in LDS practice and doctrine. The more I think about that, the more fascinating it is to me. The early influencers of LDS beliefs came from a variety of pre-LDS experiences and beliefs. To say that the Whitmers, Cowdery, Rigdon, Hyde, Marsh, and the Pratts didn't influence early LDS doctrine is perhaps naive at best. They came from different backgrounds and in one way or another each had a significant impact on the development of the Church and of Joseph Smith as a leader and theologian. Please, in saying that I am not eliminating the divine in all of that. God may very well have used them in the formulation of the doctrines of the Church. Revelation takes many forms. Many writers have touched on this; I think a larger exposition of the historiography of early LDS doctrine is a dissertation waiting to happen! The Nicene Creed's purpose was not to state the trinity. That was much more the intent of the Athanasian Creed. And I think it helps to keep in mind that the creeds did not create the beliefs; the beliefs already pre-existent were written into the creeds. That is a huuuuuuge difference.

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Also I would be really impressed if your conclusion sentence said. "At some point we have to discard what others say and believe about us and simply trust God; also we have to discard what we say about others, what we say about what they say and believe and simply trust God." Now, that would be progress. When you reject the Christology of 99.4% of the rest of Christianity are you doing the same thing you say "some Evangelicals" do? I think that may part of your point?

I would like to respond to this.

Are we saying they are not Christian?

Do we say they believe in a different/false Christ?

Do we say they are heretical?

Do we say they are going to hell?

Do we call them a cult (which they are - as are we technically)?

To some extent we do the same things they do, because I think every Christian has some sort of belief about the nature of God, but by and large we don't do the above things they do to us. Everyone is looking for truth - we just find it in different places. To the extent our beliefs are scriptural, they should be very careful, lest they find themselves fighting truth. Who hates truth, and wants to trick men into believing lies? To the extent one group has unscriptural beliefs, will they end up fighting against our Savior Himself? These are important questions.

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You might not, but others in the church would.

It was only a couple of weeks ago on this board where a few faithful members were arguing that Christians outside of the LDS church are not a part of the Body of Christ, essentially saying they weren't truly Christian. I recognize there is a slight difference there, but I think the intent of creating an Us versus them, in/out identity is the same. I think it's all silliness/rudeness/arrogance, whether coming from the LDS church, Evangelicals, Catholics...whoever.

I think "Christian" is pretty vague and can be taken to be tied to questions of fact about how God views people or more usually questions of what the believer actually believes religiously. It seems to me that we almost always mean the latter and whether a believer believes in Christ as God. Whether or not God accepts any particular group seems a very different question.

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Nicene Creed's purpose was not to state the trinity. That was much more the intent of the Athanasian Creed. And I think it helps to keep in mind that the creeds did not create the beliefs; the beliefs already pre-existent were written into the creeds. That is a huuuuuuge difference.

I think it important to keep in mind that the creeds are intrinsically vague. Indeed a common criticism of both the Nicene and Athanasian creeds is that they are so vague that no one really understands what they are assenting to when they express belief in them. So when we talk about beliefs before the creeds, I'd agree that some aspects pre-date the creeds. However it's also the case that the creeds shape later belief and that the beliefs before and after are extremely vague. We're simply not talking about clear well defined beliefs IMO. Further there are obviously lots of very different beliefs still compatible with the creeds.

Even something like "baptismal regeneration" has to be pretty carefully unpacked given the ambiguity in that term.

55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's important to understand who Christ is to have faith in Him.  But I would never say that the Pope's failure to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate personages forming the Godhead makes it impossible for him to have faith in Christ.  It might be better if he understood Christ correctly, but ...

Not to get pedantic again but the Trinity doctrine is three personages and one essence. Now of course we can get even more pedantic and talk about the wide variety of ways to interpret hypostasis as used in the creeds. Mormons typically mean personage to imply an essential spatio-temporal body of some sort. Most people holding to the Trinity do not. However technically "personage" is pretty vague and unclear. I'd say that the Mormon use is fairly compatible with the Trinity even if other interpretations also compatible with the Trinity are incompatible with normative Mormon belief.

 

 

 

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I would like to respond to this.

Are we saying they are not Christian?

Do we say they believe in a different/false Christ?

Do we say they are heretical?

Do we say they are going to hell?

Do we call them a cult (which they are - as are we technically)?

To some extent we do the same things they do, because I think every Christian has some sort of belief about the nature of God, but by and large we don't do the above things they do to us. Everyone is looking for truth - we just find it in different places. To the extent our beliefs are scriptural, they should be very careful, lest they find themselves fighting truth. Who hates truth, and wants to trick men into believing lies? To the extent one group has unscriptural beliefs, will they end up fighting against our Savior Himself? These are important questions.

Hi Rev: I am going to answer your questions from the point of view of the vast number of non-LDS Christians who I know, and from what they tell me when I travel to speak.

Are we saying they are not Christian?   Yes, absolutely, no question  - or you wouldn't try and convert us to a faith we already hold

Do we say they believe in a different/false Christ? Yes - or you wouldn't say you are the only true and living Church and you wouldn't use the word "wrong" about us so much.

Do we say they are heretical? Yes, or you wouldn't call them Gentiles, apostates, reprobates, Sons of Baal, Followers of Canaan, enemies, ilk (I read that one yesterday), mobbers, and a host of other pejorative names over the years.

Do we say they are going to hell? No, however you do say they are going to an eternity without the presence of God the Father and the Son. For many that is hell-like; just with the absence of flames.

Do we call them a cult? - I have never heard that one; however you call us much worse - things like fraudulent, wrong. You lump us all together, stereotype, and demonstrate an absolute belief in your rightness (about everything) and our wrongness.

You have raised an excellent set of questions. The answers to your questions are far different than what you might think. It is what I call, in trying to be helpful (that never works) the great blind spot of Mormonism (or whatever term I should use.  You seemingly have little ability to see how offensive your beliefs are about us; and therefore fail to see the role those beliefs play in the opposition to you over the past 190 years. You or someone else last week said that Protestants have a dual standard; one for Latter-day Saints and one for other Christians. You, or that person is probably right; you just fail to see the real reason why. I know you won't or can't agree with me on this; I only ask you to ponder on it, just as I ask my fellow non-LDS Christians to ponder on their views, biases, and prejudices about Latter-day Saints. Your "otherness" beliefs may be the single most powerfully-held doctrine in your Church.

These things I have just written are things that God has revealed to me about both the urgency and road blocks to inter-faith dialogue - the kind of respect and awareness that would please Him. We all need to see with open eyes. We all have so much to learn. I mean no offense; my heart is hurting for all the conflict between God's children. Yesterday I read an article in a semi-official Church journal in which the author, a prominent LDS lay leader call non-Mormons "ilk." What an ugly thing to say! It didn't make me mad; it tore at my heart. I don't know the exact meaning of the word "ilk" but it certainly is negative.

Driving home from speaking last week, I had a clear vision of God the Father crying over what we collectively have done to each other as His children - Saints and non-LDS Christians alike. It prompted me to want to be even more passionate about the reality that we are collectively "Making God Cry." I will never forget that sense that I had. If you truly believe in ongoing revelation, and if you even hold a smidgen of belief that a non-LDS Christian can have revelation, then I testify to each of you that, that is what I saw driving home. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

On 10/16/2018 at 2:22 PM, RevTestament said:

You do not understand, so it would be nice if you stop trying to preach to us, and belittle LDS as little children compared to trinitarians. We do not teach the Godhead is comprised of "two people."

Nor are we created unholy:

Luke 2:23

23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the ^awomb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

I think the best policy is just to ignore him.

He seems uninformed - at best- or ...... well you get to figure out the "at worst" part.

The bottom line for me is that it is not likely we will change his opinions and he has no credible arguments against the church to combat.

Edited October 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

On 10/16/2018 at 8:37 PM, JarMan said:

I think you were right when you said that Mormons were rejected as Christians because of heterodox views. But heterodox to what? Well, by definition heterodoxy is heterodox to orthodoxy. And what defines orthodoxy? The creeds, for one. As a mainstream Christian you don’t need to know the creeds even exist to quickly realize the LDS view of the trinity is heterodox. You just need to attend church semi-regularly. But that is beside the point. The creedal argument you keep hearing from us is implied whenever someone points out the Mormon view of the godhead is heterodox. 

We have to be careful here. According to the creeds Mormon belief is pretty well compatible with the Trinity. The main doctrinal points of dispute are

1. Creation ex nihilo. This was commonly taught but not in any of the early creeds. I'm not sure when creation ex nihilo became formal doctrine. In the west it's in The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215  and then the later Westminister Confession.

2. Embodiment of Father. Again it's common to say God is spirit although I don't know if there's any formal statement embracing a non-materialist ontology.

Now of course many if not most Trinitarians tend to see the hypostasis differently from Mormons. But technically we're compatible with the formal doctrine.

So I think the issue you raise of orthodoxy is more complex than you suggest. Particularly once the western church splits with Luther and then we get the significant fractionism in Protestantism.

Admittedly one can raise problems with the shared substance view of the Trinity since many Mormon theologians have adopted more nominalistic positions. But there's such a wide range of interpretations of substance in the history of western Christianity that I'm not sure that gets us far. For instance I think the conception of the ousia by Duns Scotus is fully compatible with Mormon thought. Perhaps the common (although not universal) nominalism is a problem. But heaven knows there were famous nominalist theologians like Peter Abelard. Admittedly some of his writings were condemned at the Council of Soisssons and Council of Sens. However it's not clear to me how he's viewed in Protestantism. Luther opposed all the scholastics but for kind of weird reasons. However he's often seen as a nominalist despite attacking the scholarstics for Aristotle's philosophy. Calvin seems to have strong nominalist tendencies. So I'm not sure nominalist Mormons are theologically that far outside of what's considered orthodox.

 

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We have to be careful here. According to the creeds Mormon belief is pretty well compatible with the Trinity. The main doctrinal points of dispute are

1. Creation ex nihilo. This was commonly taught but not in any of the early creeds. I'm not sure when creation ex nihilo became formal doctrine. In the west it's in The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215  and then the later Westminister Confession.

2. Embodiment of Father. Again it's common to say God is spirit although I don't know if there's any formal statement embracing a non-materialist ontology.

Now of course many if not most Trinitarians tend to see the hypostasis differently from Mormons. But technically we're compatible with the formal doctrine.

So I think the issue you raise of orthodoxy is more complex than you suggest. Particularly once the western church splits with Luther and then we get the significant fractionism in Protestantism.

Admittedly one can raise problems with the shared substance view of the Trinity since many Mormon theologians have adopted more nominalistic positions. But there's such a wide range of interpretations of substance in the history of western Christianity that I'm not sure that gets us far. For instance I think the conception of the ousia by Duns Scotus is fully compatible with Mormon thought. Perhaps the common (although not universal) nominalism is a problem. But heaven knows there were famous nominalist theologians like Peter Abelard. Admittedly some of his writings were condemned at the Council of Soisssons and Council of Sens. However it's not clear to me how he's viewed in Protestantism. Luther opposed all the scholastics but for kind of weird reasons. However he's often seen as a nominalist despite attacking the scholarstics for Aristotle's philosophy. Calvin seems to have strong nominalist tendencies. So I'm not sure nominalist Mormons are theologically that far outside of what's considered orthodox.

 

Excellent post. I think you are right on. The average Protestant preacher in the pulpit has no idea of the variations that you suggest, but they are there!

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev: I am going to answer your questions from the point of view of the vast number of non-LDS Christians who I know, and from what they tell me when I travel to speak.

Are we saying they are not Christian?   Yes, absolutely, no question  - or you wouldn't try and convert us to a faith we already hold

This seems weird since Evangelicals often rage against Catholics and try to convert them to Evangelicalism even though they don't require a new baptism. My sense is that either faith is being used oddly here or the issue is baptism not conversion. In any case it seems the issue of conversion is orthogonal to the issue of Christianity.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Do we say they believe in a different/false Christ? Yes - or you wouldn't say you are the only true and living Church and you wouldn't use the word "wrong" about us so much.

This gets at the key issue to my mind and is why these discussions get frustrating. There's two ways to talk about Christ. The first is whether our descriptions of him are accurate. So someone might think Jesus looks like a typical contemporary Palestinian while someone else might assume he looks like the classic paintings and thus look vaguely Irish. We wouldn't want to say that they worship different Jesuses just because they predicate different properties on Jesus. The question then becomes when do beliefs differ enough that they affect not just descriptions of Jesus but reference?

That question of reference vs. description typically gets avoided by those arguing we believe a different Jesus. Presumably the claim is that our beliefs differ enough that the reference is different. But few actually make an argument along those lines.

To your argument, "wrong" simply doesn't entail that the reference is incorrect. I think most if not all Mormons think non-Mormon Christians worship the same Jesus. They just believe incorrect things about that same Jesus.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Do we say they are heretical? Yes, or you wouldn't call them Gentiles, apostates, reprobates, Sons of Baal, Followers of Canaan, enemies, ilk (I read that one yesterday), mobbers, and a host of other pejorative names over the years.

It seems to me that heretical is different from apostate. Afterall a lot of people who believed heretical things aren't apostate. Indeed I'd say the majority of American Evangelicals believe in the heresy of modalism and think it's Trinitarianism. In any case it's not clear to me that pejorative names entail heresy.

Now of course I do think to a typical Christian we are heretical although what that means isn't clear since heresy is a more formal claim. One can think us wrong without thinking us heretical. So while typical Christians may well think us heretical it's not clear upon what basis that they think that. To my eyes most of the councils and creeds we violate are later ones typically not accepted by Protestants. So while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can formally call us heretics Protestants seem to be in a more difficult situation.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Do we say they are going to hell? No, however you do say they are going to an eternity without the presence of God the Father and the Son. For many that is hell-like; just with the absence of flames.

Do we call them a cult? - I have never heard that one; however you call us much worse - things like fraudulent, wrong. You lump us all together, stereotype, and demonstrate an absolute belief in your rightness (about everything) and our wrongness.

Mormons don't say non-Mormon Christians will spend eternity without the Presence of the Father. We say they can reject that presence but that's a very different claim.

Likewise I've never heard a Mormon say non-Mormon Christianity is fraudulent. But even if some did, I don't see how that is tied to cult. It seems odd to say calling someone wrong is worse than saying they belong to a cult though. That's pretty odd IMO.

 

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev: I am going to answer your questions from the point of view of the vast number of non-LDS Christians who I know, and from what they tell me when I travel to speak.

Are we saying they are not Christian?   Yes, absolutely, no question  - or you wouldn't try and convert us to a faith we already hold

Do we say they believe in a different/false Christ? Yes - or you wouldn't say you are the only true and living Church and you wouldn't use the word "wrong" about us so much.

Do we say they are heretical? Yes, or you wouldn't call them Gentiles, apostates, reprobates, Sons of Baal, Followers of Canaan, enemies, ilk (I read that one yesterday), mobbers, and a host of other pejorative names over the years.

Do we say they are going to hell? No, however you do say they are going to an eternity without the presence of God the Father and the Son. For many that is hell-like; just with the absence of flames.

Do we call them a cult? - I have never heard that one; however you call us much worse - things like fraudulent, wrong. You lump us all together, stereotype, and demonstrate an absolute belief in your rightness (about everything) and our wrongness.

You have raised an excellent set of questions. The answers to your questions are far different than what you might think. It is what I call, in trying to be helpful (that never works) the great blind spot of Mormonism (or whatever term I should use.  You seemingly have little ability to see how offensive your beliefs are about us; and therefore fail to see the role those beliefs play in the opposition to you over the past 190 years. You or someone else last week said that Protestants have a dual standard; one for Latter-day Saints and one for other Christians. You, or that person is probably right; you just fail to see the real reason why. I know you won't or can't agree with me on this; I only ask you to ponder on it, just as I ask my fellow non-LDS Christians to ponder on their views, biases, and prejudices about Latter-day Saints. Your "otherness" beliefs may be the single most powerfully-held doctrine in your Church.

What I am saying is if we have a blind spot, it is just as much present in Protestant Christianity, and I believe is a reaction to how Protestant Christianity has referred to LDS Christians over the years. Pointing fingers does little. Can you find instances in LDS literature where Protestants are the recipients of some name calling? Sure you can. You can also find plenty of that in Protestant literature, newspapers, magazines, etc, about LDS Christians. I am sure you know this from your decades of research into Mormon history. Saying we are the ones with "the blind spot" is asking us to change and be more loving and kind, while continuing to be the recipients of Protestant Christian abuse from their huge blind spot. Well, that is the Christian thing to do, but to respond at least somewhat in kind is going to happen because of the natural man, who doesn't like rejection and disrespect.

Will we ever just become the one, big happy family you envision? I don't think so. The two theologies are fundamentally at odds. One actually teaches we can become like Christ, and the other kind of says like him in resurrected form, but that's it - we like God the way He is, and He cannot change to let us into His family. To accept the former, one is forced to jump ship so to speak, because the crew of the ship won't let you back on -  if you embrace that, there is no coming back to "us." What you keep calling our blind spot I think is a simple reaction to that. I find it most prevalent amongst Protestant Christians actually. The old orthodox, are less vocal about it, and tolerate LDS Christianity I think in friendlier ways, although when it comes down to it, they still consider us heretical. Maybe we are just a breath of fresh air as compared to Protestants. 

Why does this gap continue to exist? I think because our Savior says, he who does not believe me, is not worthy of me. We also believe from the Book of Mormon, that in the last days there will come a complete separation among the people as the Father begins His work of reunifying His people. So, we kind of expect not being accepted, and many of us give up our old lives in order to follow our Savior's restored gospel. I think largely, it is by design. Are we willing to give up the things of the world? Recognition, pride, status? That is at the very heart of the restored gospel. It's a pearl - is it of great price or not? The price is being willing to suffer the derision of the world in order to follow truth. It is this way because the Lord designed it  this way, in order that He could try His people. I am not saying that LDS Christians don't have some blind spot, but that in the end it doesn't matter because there will be no one big happy family of all Christian followers in 30,000 different sects. That is somewhat by design because the Lord will not compromise in the truths He will reveal. He is not a compromiser. Straight is the gate and narrow is the  way.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the best policy is just to ignore him.

He seems uninformed - at best- or ...... well you get to figure out the "at worst" part.

The bottom line for me is that it is not likely we will change his opinions and he has no credible arguments against the church to combat.

Yeah, I basically did. I think Anon is gone. I kinda feel for him, because I think he started on a  path desiring truth, and ended up in a world of his own making. He just doesn't realize his own conclusions conflict with scripture. It can be a dangerous road some are just not equipped to handle, and some end up under the influence of the adversary. 

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

This seems weird since Evangelicals often rage against Catholics and try to convert them to Evangelicalism even though they don't require a new baptism. My sense is that either faith is being used oddly here or the issue is baptism not conversion. In any case it seems the issue of conversion is orthogonal to the issue of Christianity.

This gets at the key issue to my mind and is why these discussions get frustrating. There's two ways to talk about Christ. The first is whether our descriptions of him are accurate. So someone might think Jesus looks like a typical contemporary Palestinian while someone else might assume he looks like the classic paintings and thus look vaguely Irish. We wouldn't want to say that they worship different Jesuses just because they predicate different properties on Jesus. The question then becomes when do beliefs differ enough that they affect not just descriptions of Jesus but reference?

That question of reference vs. description typically gets avoided by those arguing we believe a different Jesus. Presumably the claim is that our beliefs differ enough that the reference is different. But few actually make an argument along those lines.

To your argument, "wrong" simply doesn't entail that the reference is incorrect. I think most if not all Mormons think non-Mormon Christians worship the same Jesus. They just believe incorrect things about that same Jesus.

It seems to me that heretical is different from apostate. Afterall a lot of people who believed heretical things aren't apostate. Indeed I'd say the majority of American Evangelicals believe in the heresy of modalism and think it's Trinitarianism. In any case it's not clear to me that pejorative names entail heresy.

Now of course I do think to a typical Christian we are heretical although what that means isn't clear since heresy is a more formal claim. One can think us wrong without thinking us heretical. So while typical Christians may well think us heretical it's not clear upon what basis that they think that. To my eyes most of the councils and creeds we violate are later ones typically not accepted by Protestants. So while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can formally call us heretics Protestants seem to be in a more difficult situation.

Mormons don't say non-Mormon Christians will spend eternity without the Presence of the Father. We say they can reject that presence but that's a very different claim.

Likewise I've never heard a Mormon say non-Mormon Christianity is fraudulent. But even if some did, I don't see how that is tied to cult. It seems odd to say calling someone wrong is worse than saying they belong to a cult though. That's pretty odd IMO.

 

 

Hi Thanks for your thoughtful response. First, I am not making any argument. I am answering questions as to how those to whom I speak about inter-faith issues respond. I am not saying they are right or wrong. I am only answering the questions asked. Parsing the fine doctrinal issues involved unfortunately doesn't come to the mind of those who are subjects of being "converted." The very root of the term implies from something to something else.

You are clearly very informed an knowledgeable. I value that. I would simply suggest that evangelicals don't rage against Catholics. One cannot be converted to evangelicalism. Fundamentalist Protestants quite often rage against Catholics and sometimes everyone else who isn't them. Fundamentalism is like evangelicalism in that it is not a denomination in and of itself, but is very different from evangelicalism as it developed in the 1940's as a backlash against modernism and fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Catholics rage against others who they select for their wrath. One way you can discern an evangelical is that they don't rage. As long as I am welcome on this forum I will try and help folks understand the differences between Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Mainstream Protestants. In Catholicism the same divides exist. There certainly are evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals and mainstream folks in Catholicism. I would also suggest that similar, but not equal divisions exist in Mormonism, or at least in aspects of Mormon doctrine. The dedication of the Kirtland temple was certainly a Pentecostal event. We all know about fundamentalists in the generic greater world of the followers of Joseph Smith. I live two hours from several thousands. Anyway, I am making no argument. I am trying to build a bridge of understanding. Fundamentalists know it is offensive to Saints when they show up at  temples, pageants, etc to proselytize and they don't care.  Either my LDS Christian friends don't know how offensive their actions, verbiage, and stereotyping of non-LDS Christians is, or they don't care either. I am betting and hoping for the former not the latter.

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would simply suggest that evangelicals don't rage against Catholics. One cannot be converted to evangelicalism. Fundamentalist Protestants quite often rage against Catholics and sometimes everyone else who isn't them.Fundamentalism is like evangelicalism in that it is not a denomination in and of itself, but is very different from evangelicalism as it developed in the 1940's as a backlash against modernism and fundamentalism. 

I'm not sure your taxonomy matches my experiences living in Louisiana in the late 80's where self-identifying Evangelicals did rage against Catholics rather regularly. One can be both an Evangelical and fundamentalist. My experience is that most Evangelicals are fundamentalists but certainly all aren't. My experience is also that most Evangelicals and fundamentalists are largely ignorant about scripture and theology. I also notice that a lot of self-identifying Evangelicals don't self-identify as fundamentalist even though the way they read the Bible is basically how fundamentalists do.

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Parsing the fine doctrinal issues involved unfortunately doesn't come to the mind of those who are subjects of being "converted." The very root of the term implies from something to something else.

I think I'm saying that the fine doctrine really doesn't apply so people saying it does (whether you or those for whom you're creating answers) are problematic. In other words I think people often answer the way you suggest. I just think they are typically wrong and ill informed when they give those answers.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

What I am saying is if we have a blind spot, it is just as much present in Protestant Christianity, and I believe is a reaction to how Protestant Christianity has referred to LDS Christians over the years. Pointing fingers does little. Can you find instances in LDS literature where Protestants are the recipients of some name calling? Sure you can. You can also find plenty of that in Protestant literature, newspapers, magazines, etc, about LDS Christians. I am sure you know this from your decades of research into Mormon history. Saying we are the ones with "the blind spot" is asking us to change and be more loving and kind, while continuing to be the recipients of Protestant Christian abuse from their huge blind spot. Well, that is the Christian thing to do, but to respond at least somewhat in kind is going to happen because of the natural man, who doesn't like rejection and disrespect.

Will we ever just become the one, big happy family you envision? I don't think so. The two theologies are fundamentally at odds. One actually teaches we can become like Christ, and the other kind of says like him in resurrected form, but that's it - we like God the way He is, and He cannot change to let us into His family. To accept the former, one is forced to jump ship so to speak, because the crew of the ship won't let you back on -  if you embrace that, there is no coming back to "us." What you keep calling our blind spot I think is a simple reaction to that. I find it most prevalent amongst Protestant Christians actually. The old orthodox, are less vocal about it, and tolerate LDS Christianity I think in friendlier ways, although when it comes down to it, they still consider us heretical. Maybe we are just a breath of fresh air as compared to Protestants. 

Why does this gap continue to exist? I think because our Savior says, he who does not believe me, is not worthy of me. We also believe from the Book of Mormon, that in the last days there will come a complete separation among the people as the Father begins His work of reunifying His people. So, we kind of expect not being accepted, and many of us give up our old lives in order to follow our Savior's restored gospel. I think largely, it is by design. Are we willing to give up the things of the world? Recognition, pride, status? That is at the very heart of the restored gospel. It's a pearl - is it of great price or not? The price is being willing to suffer the derision of the world in order to follow truth. It is this way because the Lord designed it  this way, in order that He could try His people. I am not saying that LDS Christians don't have some blind spot, but that in the end it doesn't matter because there will be no one big happy family of all Christian followers in 30,000 different sects. That is somewhat by design because the Lord will not compromise in the truths He will reveal. He is not a compromiser. Straight is the gate and narrow is the  way.

Thanks for the reply. If I were only speaking to LDS Christians I could understand your thinking that I am pointing fingers. I, however am speaking to anyone who will listen to me in the broader Protestant community as well. I do so formally in meetings and informally in sutations like on this forum. I agree wholeheartedly that Fundamentalists mainly, say very painful things about the Saints. I disagree however that it is an indication of a blindspot. They know they do. They take it as a badge of honor. They are mean and unkind. That is a very different conversation. My exposure to the Saints is that the majority are not mean and unkind. They are in denial about how painful their comments are because of Hawn's Mill and 100 other stories from their ancestors, and because of their own experience with fundamentalist Protestants. It is like we have suffered, so our response is ok. I don't think that is Christ-like.

I also don't think we will ever be one big happy family. I do think that it is possible that we can lower the rhetoric - isn't that what books like Are Mormons Christians, and How Wide the Divide are about? Now, having said that you have introduced something to me I did not know. That is why I like this forum. I learn things. I think if I am reading you write that Latter-day Saint eschatology teaches that the end times necessitate a worsening of relations between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. That is something I know nothing about. What I do know however, is that end times theories have caused tremendous loss of life, damage to the Christian community and are very powerful. If Saints believe that things must get worse between Christians in order for God's end-time plan to be fulfilled, that is quite frankly, scary. Do you have some LDS work on eschatology that teaches this? I am not questioning you; I simply want to understand. Eschatology at times brings hope; at times it can be terribly destructive.

Anyway, thanks as always for your thoughtful reply. I think what you are describing in prevalent only in fundamentalist Protestants. That may be a distinction without a difference to you, but it makes a world of difference to folks like me. So many of the posts here include these huge broad monolithic statements that indicate a lack of understanding of the tremendous diversity within Protestantism. There certainly is diversity within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Multiply that by ten times and you will begin to proximate the diversity within Protestantism.

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure your taxonomy matches my experiences living in Louisiana in the late 80's where self-identifying Evangelicals did rage against Catholics rather regularly. One can be both an Evangelical and fundamentalist. My experience is that most Evangelicals are fundamentalists but certainly all aren't. My experience is also that most Evangelicals and fundamentalists are largely ignorant about scripture and theology. I also notice that a lot of self-identifying Evangelicals don't self-identify as fundamentalist even though the way they read the Bible is basically how fundamentalists do.

I think I'm saying that the fine doctrine really doesn't apply so people saying it does (whether you or those for whom you're creating answers) are problematic. In other words I think people often answer the way you suggest. I just think they are typically wrong and ill informed when they give those answers.

 

For you to say that one can be both evangelical and fundamentalist shows your lack of understanding of us (no offense). One can be evangelistic and be fundamentalist. One can be an evangelist and be fundamentalist, one can be all for evangelism and be fundamentalist. But being an evangelical is something different all together. There are often both fundamentalists and evangelicals in the same denominations so that doesn't help. For example, In the state you mentioned, there are many Southern Baptist fundamentalists. No question about it. There are also many Southern Baptist evangelicals; and there is no doubt there are a few Southern Baptist mainstream churches in Louisiana as well. The Southern Baptist Seminary in New Orleans of that name has struggled mightily with conflicts between the three branches over the past fifty years. The conflict has been divisive and deep.  In the deep south the conflict is especially strong. Both evangelicals and fundamentalists take a very high view of Scriptural interpretation, but even in that they differ greatly. They are simply two very different groups within what is typically seen as conservative Christianity. They go to different churches, different colleges, seminaries and have very different histories back to the 1930's. My LDS Christian friends just don't show an interest in taking the time to learn the differences. Are there not doctrinal and polity differences between the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is there not now more cooperation between the two than before? There still are great distinctions however. I would suggest the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists are greater.