Controversy over "The Chosen" line Supposedly Taken from the Book of Mormon

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I'm not sure what "historical Christianity" means.  It seems like a moving target.
...
I also don't know what "Historic and Orthodox Christianity" means.

I am simply speaking to how much of Christianity views Mormonism and its teachings about the Godhead.

"Christianity" has all sorts of factions disagreeing with each other in terms of doctrine, authority, etc.  The novelty here is that you reference "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity" (capitalized, no less) as if these things are readily and plainly defined.  Daniel Peterson has addressed this at length, hence my citation to his work.  You have not, and apparently will not, explain what you mean by these terms.  You are, I think, trading on equivocation and ambiguity, a key point addressed by Peterson.

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

I did not say I agreed or whether they are right or wrong.

Fine.  But you can't or won't even define what you mean by referencing "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity."

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

But it is clear that Mormonism has doctrine about the Godhead that most, if not all, the rest of Christianity rejects and may even find it heretical.

Again, I am not disputing that various segments of Christianity have doctrinal disagreements with each other.  Again, such disagreement speaks more to differentiated and distinguishable beliefs about the same Jesus Christ, not to belief in a numerically distinct Jesus Christ.  

What is your position?  Do you think that the Latter-day Saints believe in a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one whose life is described in the New Testament of the Bible?

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I think you certainly know what I mean when I use the terms historic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity.  

I do not.  And given that you are refusing to define these terms, I question whether you know what you mean when you are using them.

Daniel Peterson has aptly noted that "{t}erms like 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' seem increasingly—to modern objective scholarship—to be mere self-congratulatory epithets worked up by the victors in the dogmatic skirmishes of Christian history," that "{i}n earliest Christianity, the two are often impossible to distinguish, at least without the benefit of hindsight," and that "{i}n many areas, the 'heretics' were the established church, while the 'orthodox' were the damnable minority."

If you are going to appeal to concepts like "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity," you ought to be able to coherently define them.  That you cannot, or will not, is a perpetuation of the defective reasoning critiqued in Peterson's book.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that the very earliest Christians were all over the place.

Weird, then, that you appeal to the concept of "historic Christianity" as being some sort of coherent grouping.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Jesus really did not establish a church, per say. 

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, He did.

(Also, it's "per se").

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

That came later. Paul and the other apostles clearly had differences.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Other sects sprang up with competing doctrine and "scripture, some of which made it into the eventually accepted canon, and some did not.

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the "Primitive Church" referenced in AoF 1:6 ended when those who held the priesthood were scattered and killed, and when the priesthood authority was not perpetuated.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Eventually a more dominant proto-orthodox group began to dominate.  Eventually that became the Catholic church and things developed from there.  Today there is a body of Christian Orthodoxy that the Catholic, Eastern Church and most of the body of protestant sects accept. 

Okay.  What is this "body of Christian Orthodoxy?"  CFR, please.

Have you read the book by Peterson and Ricks?  It sounds like you have not.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism deviates from such orthodoxy in many significant ways.

What is this "orthodoxy" you reference here?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

A Latter-day Saint should not be surprised when much of The Christian world rejects such differences as non Christian and the worshipping of a "different" Jesus.

We are not surprised at doctrinal disagreements.  This speaks more to differentiated and distinguishable beliefs about the same Jesus Christ, not to belief in a numerically distinct Jesus Christ. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Apologists can cry in their cheerios all day long.

Antipathy and ridicule do not advance your argument, whatever it is.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I understand the LDS position as well as the non LDS position quite well. 

Okay.  What is your position?  Do you believe that the Latter-day Saints worship a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one described in the New Testament of the Bible?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

As a former apologist for Mormonism I always argues against the different Jesus criticism. Hey we believe everything in the Bible about Jesus as much as you do, I would often say.  But I also argued it was they, and their historic creeds that got Jesus and  the Godhead wrong, not us.  If there was a "false" Jesus being worshipped it was they who had the wrong exalted dude. So I am sympathetic to the LDS view.  But I highly doubt Mormonism will even be considered a valid Christian denomination by theologians who are knowledgeable about such things.  Nor should they want to be.

The issue, I think, is the factually incorrect statement that we believe in and worship a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

The earliest Christians weren't as all over the place as those that came later,

Well the it came later was when the early Christians were formulating their beliefs. Likely started with Paul and Paul and the other apostles disagreed on doctrinal points.  By the late first century Christianity was fairly diverse.  And as noted, it does not seem Jesus organized a church.  Didn't FARMS recently publish a book on the apostasy and take that position?

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

 

but I agree with your point (they weren't completely uniform in their teachings).  And this was really my point about saying that Christians of today might cut us a little slack if they actually studied the teachings of that time, and also because it certainly wasn't the same "Orthodoxy" and beliefs about God at that time as they might understand under the term "historic Christianity" today. 

Well ok.  But we do have 2000 years of Christianity and most of what is Christianity today agrees on a number of critical doctrines that Mormonism rejects, differs from or adds completely unique doctrines.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I agree completely.  Regarding the Godhead, the earliest Christians taught that Jesus was the "second God" and "another God subject to the Maker of all things", for example.  That doesn't sit well with their modern ideas about "historic Christianity".

But all of this really underscores the problem in defining "historical Christianity". 

Based on what I have read and on what other Christians tell me Historic Orthodox Christianity encompasses the creeds, does not add additional canonized scripture (though Catholics do rely on teachings outside of Canon for doctrine), believe in the trinitarian godhead. Protestants have some differences on key issues from Catholics.  I would think those include a priesthood of all believers, grace only, inerrancy of the Bible (not sure what Catholics view is here) etc.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

 

And what does a person mean when they say "Mormonism" is different than "historical Christianity"?  "Historical Christianity" is all over the board.

See above. IT seems there is a well developed set of crucial doctrine that could be called historical orthodox Christianity.  Many of my Protestant friends might call these the essentials.

 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I really don't think the church is trying to be considered a "valid Christian denomination" as much as they are just trying to be understood for what we actually believe and teach.  We believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him.  If someone doesn't classify us as "Christian", then it projects a perception that we don't believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him.  That is the underlying problem in the "Christian" comparison, in my opinion, and the message the church is trying to address.

I think that is fair.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Christianity" has all sorts of factions disagreeing with each other in terms of doctrine, authority, etc. 

See my post to @InCognitusperhaps that will help.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

The novelty here is that you reference "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity" (capitalized, no less)

It is not a novelty at all. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

as if these things are readily and plainly defined.

There is certainly a body of accepted doctrine that seem to be agreed upon across Christian sects.  Who and what God is, acceptance of the historical creeds, the chasm between God and man, creator and creation,  which Mormonism does not have. creation ex nihilo and so on.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

  Daniel Peterson has addressed this at length, hence my citation to his work.  You have not, and apparently will not, explain what you mean by these terms.  You are, I think, trading on equivocation and ambiguity, a key point addressed by Peterson.

Not trying to equivocate.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Fine.  But you can't or won't even define what you mean by referencing "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity."

Again, I am not disputing that various segments of Christianity have doctrinal disagreements with each other.  Again, such disagreement speaks more to differentiated and distinguishable beliefs about the same Jesus Christ, not to belief in a numerically distinct Jesus Christ.  

What is your position?  Do you think that the Latter-day Saints believe in a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one whose life is described in the New Testament of the Bible?

I do not.  And given that you are refusing to define these terms, I question whether you know what you mean when you are using them.

Daniel Peterson has aptly noted that "{t}erms like 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' seem increasingly—to modern objective scholarship—to be mere self-congratulatory epithets worked up by the victors in the dogmatic skirmishes of Christian history," that "{i}n earliest Christianity, the two are often impossible to distinguish, at least without the benefit of hindsight," and that "{i}n many areas, the 'heretics' were the established church, while the 'orthodox' were the damnable minority."

If you are going to appeal to concepts like "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity," you ought to be able to coherently define them.  That you cannot, or will not, is a perpetuation of the defective reasoning critiqued in Peterson's book.

Thanks,

-Smac

i am rather tied up at the moment so I will try to respond more later.  But to answer the bolded item, no I do not.  But there are a whole lot of Christian sects out there who think Latter-day Saints DO believe is a false Jesus.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Christianity" has all sorts of factions disagreeing with each other in terms of doctrine, authority, etc.  The novelty here is that you reference "historical Christianity" and "Historic and Orthodox Christianity" (capitalized, no less) as if these things are readily and plainly defined.  Daniel Peterson has addressed this at length, hence my citation to his work.  You have not, and apparently will not, explain what you mean by these terms.  You are, I think, trading on equivocation and ambiguity, a key point addressed by Peterson.

Also quickly:

I have read Offender for a Word.  A long time ago.

Here is what I think is reasonable definition of Historical Orthodox Christianity:

 

Quote

 

What Is the Orthodox Church? History and Beliefs of Orthodoxy

Orthodox Definition and Meaning

Orthodox: (of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Orthodoxy is belief or adherence to traditional or affirmed creeds, notably in religion. In the Christian sense, the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church." The first seven ecumenical councils occurred between the years of 325 and 787 A.D. with the purpose of establishing accepted doctrines.

In historic Christian use, the word orthodox relates to the collection of doctrines that were accepted by the early Christians. Several ecumenical councils were gathered over a period of several centuries in an attempt to establish these doctrines. The most notable of these historic declarations was that between the Homoousian doctrine, which became Trinitarianism, and the Heteroousian doctrine, called Arianism. The Homoousian doctrine, which characterized Jesus as both God and man with the canons of the 431 Council of Ephesus, won out in the Church and was referred to as orthodoxy in most Christian purposes since this was the understanding of early Christian Church Fathers and was confirmed at the ecumenical councils.

https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/the-orthodox-church-history-and-beliefs-of-orthodoxy.html#:~:text=Orthodox Definition and Meaning&text=In the Christian sense%2C the,purpose of establishing accepted doctrines.

 

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Weird, then, that you appeal to the concept of "historic Christianity" as being some sort of coherent grouping.

You apparently are not understanding my point.  There was not initially a coherent Christian sect. There were competing sects.  Eventually a proto orthodox group emerged from the crowded field. And that proto orthodox sect became the Catholic Church.  You can take it from there.  It is simply a fact that there is a commonality among most of Christianity that can be called Historical Orthodoxy.  Sure there are differences but on many if not most the major points of doctrine there is relative agreement.  Those who hold to such orthodoxy view Mormonism as full of significant and un acceptable departures. I did not argue that from 33 CE there was a cohesive Orthodox Christianity so your comment above is not relevant.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, He did.

I understand that Mormonism teaches that.  It seems likely that is in incorrect position.  And while I have not read the book I reference below, based on what I have read bout it,  it seems that some LDS scholars may think that position is incorrect as well.

Quote

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christians-Disarray-Contemporary-Perspectives/dp/0934893020/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1443209612&sr=8-1&keywords=Early+Christians+in+Disarray&linkCode=sl1&tag=bycomcon-20&linkId=470173089d2082c416b76db2c63f1c98

Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy 

This book takes a fresh look at the apostasy of the early Christian church. Most Latter-day Saint scholars and leaders previously based their understanding of the Christian apostasy on the findings of Protestant scholars who provided a seemingly endless array of evidences of apostasy in Christian history.

Since the classic treatments of this topic were written, many newly discovered manuscripts written during the first Christian centuries have come to light, giving a clearer picture of what the early Christian experience was like. Drawing on this material, LDS scholars today are able to shift the focus of study to the causes of the apostasy rather than the effects.

This volume of essays reports new research by several LDS scholars in different fields. They identify common myths and misconceptions about the apostasy and promote better understanding of when and why the apostasy occurred.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

(Also, it's "per se").

That comment seems a bit smug. Did it make you feel good?

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

What do you base your disagreement on?  A large part of the NT is from Paul, or by someone attributing a letter to Paul.  We have little from other apostles.  The NY itself reveals significant schisms between Paul and Peter. Paul's letters are often bombastic critiques of teachings that had deviated from what he had taught to the recipients of his letters. Paul was not one of the original apostles and claim authority through a vision. But this is really not relevant much to the discussion.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the "Primitive Church" referenced in AoF 1:6 ended when those who held the priesthood were scattered and killed, and when the priesthood authority was not perpetuated.

Yes I am aware. It seems that paradigm is not correct.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What is this "body of Christian Orthodoxy?"  CFR, please.

Provided in a previous post above.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Have you read the book by Peterson and Ricks?  It sounds like you have not.

Yes.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is this "orthodoxy" you reference here?

It seems to me your knowledge base about Christianity and historic Christianity may be weak.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are not surprised at doctrinal disagreements.  This speaks more to differentiated and distinguishable beliefs about the same Jesus Christ, not to belief in a numerically distinct Jesus Christ. 

Listen and try not to miss it this time. I DO NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM. OTHER CHRISTIANS DO ABOUT MORMONISM.  That is my point. Understand?  Much of Christianity find those differences significant enough to exclude the church from the umbrella of Christianity.  Differences about the Godhead are enough for many to deny that an LDS baptism is valid. Many evangelical Christians find the differences enough to claim Mormonism has a false Christ.  Are you not aware of this?  Argue with them.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Antipathy and ridicule do not advance your argument, whatever it is.

You like that word antipathy don't you.  I already told you I don't have antipathy towards the Church.  But I do to some extent have antipathy towards much of the apologetics from LDS defenders. Their tactic contributed to my faith in Mormonism unraveling.  And by the way your posts are full of passive aggressive ridicule so maybe do some introspection before tossing stones at others.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What is your position?  Do you believe that the Latter-day Saints worship a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one described in the New Testament of the Bible?

Explained already.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The issue, I think, is the factually incorrect statement that we believe in and worship a "Jesus Christ" that is numerically distinct from the one in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

As noted I don't make that argument or agree with it. But plenty of non LDS Christians do.

[Stargazer]

I haven't been following "The Chosen". But one of my favorite history-oriented YouTube channels, Metatron, has this to say about the historical accuracy of the series: