7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

And for the same reason that a Methodist family I know of was sad when their child became Evangelical

Sorry, I don't understand that. My guess is that the majority of Methodist affiliated groups in the United States are Evangelical with the exception of the more mainline churches in the United Methodist Church. Very few Methodists, especially outside of the south are Fundamentalists. Being Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist or Evangelical are not equivalent categories. There are Evangelicals within each of those.

[Sara H]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I don't understand that. My guess is that the majority of Methodist affiliated groups in the United States are Evangelical with the exception of the more mainline churches in the United Methodist Church. Very few Methodists, especially outside of the south are Fundamentalists. Being Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist or Evangelical are not equivalent categories. There are Evangelicals within each of those.

I don't think I said that.

[Navidad]

On 6/28/2023 at 4:55 PM, Teancum said:

Well let's ignore the creeds.  Tell me what you believe about the Godhead, the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one God.  How are they one?  Are they separate beings? If the Son is embodied what about the Father?  I am just wondering about your understanding and beliefs about the Godhead in Christianity.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I think I missed this and then went on a trip up to the states. While there is much I neither believe (as a matter of certainty) not disbelieve (as a matter of certainty - here is what is important to me about God - The Navidadivian creed would suggest that God exists. He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God desires fellowship with humans and has made that possible via the atonement.

I have no beliefs (as a matter of certainty) about the trinity.

I guess I have always thought of the Son as still embodied today in a glorified sense because he took on humanity. I have always thought of the Father as a Spirit. Ditto for the Holy Spirit.

Certainly the Bible provides evidence that they are, at times or maybe always (I don't know) separate.

I don't spend any time at all thinking about the understanding and beliefs about the Godhead "in Christianity." I never have enjoyed the speculative; nor can I, in my Christian journey or pastoral practice ever remember asking anyone anywhere what they believed about "the Godhead."

I have never been a big fan of parroting. That is why I dislike asking children to give testimonies. I do believe that when people give specific, concrete, and certain answers to these type of questions they are parroting what they have been told by someone somewhere. I remember only one time out of probably three hundred times that I was angry or close to being angry in a sacrament service. That was in a different ward than our own. It may have been primary day. Anyway, mothers paraded children who couldn't have been more than three or four years old up to the stand to give "testimonies." Most of the kids were terrified. Moms kept whispering in their ears what to say and physically holding them straight to look at the congregation as they parroted what mama whispered.

I brought back an African Grey once from a mission trip to Africa. We had that bird for for than twenty years. That bird was really good at parroting what he, or she - we never knew, heard. On very rare occasions their was a correct context to what she/he said. That context was almost always about food or a food reward for saying something that prompted food. Humans parrot, I saw it all the time in public education and in church. I wouldn't bet on in which context I heard it more.

I remember very very few sermons I have heard in all my years in this or that church. I remember one that was preached by a well-respected theologian in the Presbyterian tradition. What was the title of his sermon? Glad you asked! It was, "Jesus Loves Me This I Know, for the Bible Tells Me So!" Powerful sermon about Christ's love for us. I will never forget it. I took lots of systematic theology classes - don't remember any of them! Of course, maybe I have a selective memory! Best to you.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 6/28/2023 at 1:16 PM, BlueDreams said:

No worries. This would be something of a side interest to the things I'm looking into recently....so if it were something more on the brief end of things that would be great! I don't know if I had anything specific. I just saw a number of protestant oriented sources listing things they would describe as either essential or primary doctrine. This was considered different than secondary doctrine that they described as the reason for the variations in christian practice between denominations. I don't have one specific source for this as again it hasn't been a focus. This one gave a basic gist of what I'd see. 

Probably the best, and easiest "basic gist" style book is Trent Horn's Why We're Catholic. It's commonly handed out whenever there's a cathedral renovation, or if there's an interfaith event. I've shared it with my LDS family members and they've responded very positively to it. Trent, and his wife, Laura, both have active YouTube channels, in case you want a sense of the author and his style.

 

 

[Damien the Leper]

I'm really late to this discussion. The diversity of contemporary Christianities, Mormonism included, is bountiful. Thankfully, there is not a Christian sect today that is claiming to be 100% the O.G. version of Christianity that existed in the first century. To be clear, Christianity wasn't really a thing until after Jesus's death. There is no winning faith movement to succeed Jesus's ministry. Various religious communities, like today, existed in the early centuries. Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, Proto-Orthodox, Patripassians, etc. were all thriving at one time. Christianity at no point was monolithic. Monolithic can never truly be used to describe Christianity and especially no so from self-asserting authority.

With that being said, I don't understand the necessity for contention about whom is more correct than whom. The arrogance and narcissism that are the seeds of such audacity are compellingly obtuse and self-serving. At this point there seems little to remedy such childishness. Correct belief and correct practice seem to prevail in importance over the command to love and be charitable. 

At the end of the day, I don't care if you are Patripassian, Binitarian, Trinitarian, Henotheistic/Monolatrous, or whatever. Just love. 

But what do I know? I'm just a gay, Catholic, socialist and sushi grubbing nobody on a Mormon board. 

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Thankfully, there is not a Christian sect today that is claiming to be 100% the O.G. version of Christianity that existed in the first century.

My understanding is that the earliest NT fragments found were left by sects who considered themselves Jewish. It was a while before we had a majority of NT faiths who considered themselves distinct from Judaism.

[Damien the Leper]

56 minutes ago, Chum said:

My understanding is that the earliest NT fragments found were left by sects who considered themselves Jewish. It was a while before we had a majority of NT faiths who considered themselves distinct from Judaism.

This is especially true. What would become Christianity is not a revelatory or revolutionary re-imagining of the Jewish faith.

[halconero]

I would argue that Christianity is a sibling (or perhaps cousin) to Judaism rather than a descendant thereof. Both groups emerged from 2nd Temple Jewish communities that took different lessons from both their teachers and the destruction of the temple.

Edited July 6, 2023 by halconero

[halconero]

19 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

With that being said, I don't understand the necessity for contention about whom is more correct than whom. The arrogance and narcissism that are the seeds of such audacity are compellingly obtuse and self-serving. At this point there seems little to remedy such childishness. Correct belief and correct practice seem to prevail in importance over the command to love and be charitable. 

To be clear, I am (mostly) on the same side as you with the rest of the post this is quoted from, but I disagree that narcissism and arrogance primarily motivated the contention driving the ecumenical councils (with the exception of Constantine, imo).

I think there was a very real concern, for example, over the state of people’s souls were they to believe in a Jesus that was a loose combination of human and divine natures. Could people be saved if the man suffered on the cross, but God did not? On the other hand with the monophysites, is it even possible for a fully divine Jesus to have a human experience, and is that necessary to salvation? Maybe arrogance drives the need to resolve these questions, but my sense is that fear, concern, or even genuine yearning to save souls have been equally plausible motivators for the convenors of said councils.

[Damien the Leper]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

To be clear, I am (mostly) on the same side as you with the rest of the post this is quoted from, but I disagree that narcissism and arrogance primarily motivated the contention driving the ecumenical councils (with the exception of Constantine, imo).

I think there was a very real concern, for example, over the state of people’s souls were they to believe in a Jesus that was a loose combination of human and divine natures. Could people be saved if the man suffered on the cross, but God did not? On the other hand with the monophysites, is it even possible for a fully divine Jesus to have a human experience, and is that necessary to salvation? Maybe arrogance drives the need to resolve these questions, but my sense is that fear, concern, or even genuine yearning to save souls have been equally plausible motivators for the convenors of said councils.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I do believe sincere believers had sincere concerns. The ecumenical councils had to deal with many theological issues. The arrogance and narcissism isn't the motivator but the virus. The contention to try to prove one perspective over another and declare orthodoxy, heterodoxy or heresy as a means to ostracize other faith communities as somehow inferior, less knowledgeable or lacking "all truths". No religion has more truth to offer than another. Plain and simple. For clarity, I don't place proto-orthodoxy over docetism in any way. Likewise, I don't place Mormonism over Catholicism (or vice versa) in any way. Pluralism and egalitarianism is key and crucial.

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, halconero said:

I would argue that Christianity is a sibling (or perhaps cousin) to Judaism rather than a descendant thereof. Both groups emerged from 2nd Temple Jewish communities that took different lessons from both their teachers and the destruction of the temple.

I'm totally good with this. I would never consider Christianity to be some kind of successor to Judaism.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The arrogance and narcissism isn't the motivator but the virus.

Would you agree if I changed just one word? "The arrogance and narcissism isn't the motivator but the symptom."

[Anakin7]

On 7/6/2023 at 8:05 AM, halconero said:

To be clear, I am (mostly) on the same side as you with the rest of the post this is quoted from, but I disagree that narcissism and arrogance primarily motivated the contention driving the ecumenical councils (with the exception of Constantine, imo).

I think there was a very real concern, for example, over the state of people’s souls were they to believe in a Jesus that was a loose combination of human and divine natures. Could people be saved if the man suffered on the cross, but God did not? On the other hand with the monophysites, is it even possible for a fully divine Jesus to have a human experience, and is that necessary to salvation? Maybe arrogance drives the need to resolve these questions, but my sense is that fear, concern, or even genuine yearning to save souls have been equally plausible motivators for the convenors of said councils.

Good To see you back. Missed ya !.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Would you agree if I changed just one word? "The arrogance and narcissism isn't the motivator but the symptom."

When I first glanced at your post, I thought the one changed word was going to be homoousios.  I'm glad it was something different  

[Damien the Leper]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Would you agree if I changed just one word? "The arrogance and narcissism isn't the motivator but the symptom."

I'm ok with that.