Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Here's a link to a talk that explains how we really see Christianity and all the other religions on earth.

You have yet to establish that this is a common view of members today. I get that it is your opinion, but do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that currently within the church there are a lot of members who believe that way?

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But somehow thousands of missionaries were told to get it for their missions, why is that?

People make mistakes.  Surely this is not news to you.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

You have yet to establish that this is a common view of members today. I get that it is your opinion, but do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that currently within the church there are a lot of members who believe that way?

 

Apparanty she is either not understanding that or she is still insisting on infallibility.

Even Catholics don't believe that every word from a leader is scripture.   Papal infallibility virtually is NEVER USED and it is a huge deal.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To go along with what Sara H. may or may not be saying, the church is coming around to using the cross more.

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2023/08/a-mystery-to-the-world.html

Not really, the Church had been okay with Google choosing to use it, but they had never approved the choice, they just went along with it until it was proven to be a hinderance to search efforts and by extrapolation missionary work.  Iow, it is likely if they had been given a choice from the beginning, they would have chosen a cross, so “coming around” is likely inaccurate.

This will only happen with chapels so our churches come up when people search for nearby “Christian churches”.  Google came up with the Moroni marker on its own and it serves fine if people ask specifically for “the Church of Jesus Christ”, but it decreases findability when using “Christian church” or “Christian churches”.  No need to change buildings people would go to because they know what they are, such as temples.

The Church made the choice to push for the change based on data it was a problem.  It had never been the choice of the Church in the first place, they just were being nice about not making work for google imo.  It makes sense for missionary work to get it changed.  See bold.  Dan is reposting info he got from the Church, in case it isn’t clear.
 

Quote

You may or may not already be aware, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has evidently been working for some time to improve its presence or visibility on Google Maps.  One of the items that was chosen to improve the “findability” of Latter-day Saint chapels and services was to join the broader Google Maps category of ‘Christian Churches’ instead of being in a category all by ourselves.

Why did the Church make this Google Map pin move?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is interested in findability, and always has been. We want people to find us (whether online or in-person, and to worship and serve with us). We discovered that Google had assigned Latter-day Saint chapels a custom Google maps pin that featured Moroni as the icon, while all other Christian denominations are visually identified by a cross. This visual and categorical distinction was limiting our findability for those looking for a Christian church. We are, after all. a Christian Church. By making this distinction in Google maps, all meetinghouse map pins were changed or will be changed to a cross.

The hope is that those searching for Christian churches will have the opportunity to find the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

All Google Map locations are assigned a “primary category.”  This category determines which icon is used on the marker that appears on the map. Google creates these icons and there is no process by which a request can be made to change it.

Many years ago, Google assigned a Moroni-themed marker to the category “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” This icon was neither requested nor approved by the Church.  Of the fifty-plus Christian denomination categories, ours was the only one that was not assigned a cross-themed marker. After a thorough analysis of search data, it was determined that this visual and categorical separation was limiting the visibility of Church meetinghouses in search results for terms like “churches near me” and “Christian churches near me.”

With the approval of the Church Communication Executive Committee, meetinghouses are now assigned the primary category “Christian church” to increase their findability, with “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and “Religious organization” as additional categories. As a result, the Google-assigned icon changed from Moroni to the cross.

This change is specific to meetinghouses only. Other Church-owned properties may continue to display the Moroni marker, including temples or administrative offices.

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

@Tacenda, google maps usage reflects the same usage as LDS military chaplains have been using to indicate their Christian faith, which is a cross.  I believe LDS Chaplains have always worn the cross since first accepted into the military in the first WW.  I can’t remember any protest against the insignia, just the dog tag trifaith designation, which was P for Protestant, C for Catholic, and J/H for Judaism/Hebrew.  ‘Officially’ Saints and Christian Scientists and such were Protestants in the military until 1962, I believe, when religion was fully written out.

Added:  we may have been X from 1952 on, but I was not aware of that option before

https://hakirah.org/Vol15Males.pdf

Edited September 10, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But somehow thousands of missionaries were told to get it for their missions, why is that?

When was this? I went in 89 and my papers from the church said to bring only 5 books and it wasn't one of them.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

When was this? I went in 89 and my papers from the church said to bring only 5 books and it wasn't one of them.

Both my husband and son took them. Before I posted I asked him, because I saw a Mormon Doctrine in my missionary son's things. And I knew my husband had one for years from his mission. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

@Tacenda, google maps usage reflects the same usage as LDS military chaplains have been using to indicate their Christian faith, which is a cross.  I believe LDS Chaplains have always worn the cross since first accepted into the military in the first WW.  I can’t remember any protest against the insignia, just the dog tag trifaith designation, which was P for Protestant, C for Catholic, and J/H for Judaism/Hebrew.  ‘Officially’ Saints and Christian Scientists and such were Protestants in the military until 1962, I believe, when religion was fully written out.

Added:  we may have been X from 1952 on, but I was not aware of that option before

https://hakirah.org/Vol15Males.pdf

I will have to find it, but I've heard recently that the cross is more and more accepted among the members. Like in wearing it etc. But these are from people talking about it. Maybe on reddit or discussmormonism, now I cannot remember. 

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Both my husband and son took them. Before I posted I asked him, because I saw a Mormon Doctrine in my missionary son's things. And I knew my husband had one for years from his mission. 

Interesting.  Did their mission presidents tell them to bring it?  

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

Interesting.  Did their mission presidents tell them to bring it?  

I'd have to ask my son, I don't recall having to buy it, it may have been given to him. But will ask, and my husband doesn't remember. My husband mentioned that it was a good book for the tough questions on his mission. Edit to add: Maybe it was more a culture thing, through my research it doesn't mention it on lists for missionaries from what I found.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Tacenda

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd have to ask my son, I don't recall having to buy it, it may have been given to him. But will ask, and my husband doesn't remember. My husband mentioned that it was a good book for the tough questions on his mission. Edit to add: Maybe it was more a culture thing, through my research it doesn't mention it on lists for missionaries from what I found.

That's what I would assume.  

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I will have to find it, but I've heard recently that the cross is more and more accepted among the members. Like in wearing it etc. But these are from people talking about it. Maybe on reddit or discussmormonism, now I cannot remember. 

I am not the least surprised if this is so.  And I am happy for it.  I don’t think there has ever been anything wrong with the cross.  It has been used intentionally in LDS art all along.  I think some were trying too hard to draw lines where it wasn’t needed.  I suspect there was concern that the cross was idolized itself rather than it being a symbol of worship and there was the whole low church culture that got brought into the Church by early members, which had some anti Catholic sentiment in it, though that seems to have been more prevalent later on…but maybe I am nor familiar enough with early writings and focusing too much on first edition Mormon Doctrine traditionalists (iow, those who agreed with what Elder McConkie wrote that got removed by request of church leaders for later editions), but I think forbidding of wearing it officially or unofficially went too far.  I can’t remember if it was officially or just ‘requested’ from the pulpit not to wear it.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not the least surprised if this is so.  And I am happy for it.  I don’t think there has ever been anything wrong with the cross.  It has been used intentionally in LDS art all along.  I think some were trying too hard to draw lines where it wasn’t needed.  I suspect there was concern that the cross was idolized itself rather than it being a symbol of worship and there was the whole low church culture that got brought into the Church by early members, which had some anti Catholic sentiment in it, though that seems to have been more prevalent later on…but maybe I am nor familiar enough with early writings and focusing too much on first edition Mormon Doctrine traditionalists (iow, those who agreed with what Elder McConkie wrote that got removed by request of church leaders for later editions), but I think forbidding of wearing it officially or unofficially went too far.  I can’t remember if it was officially or just ‘requested’ from the pulpit not to wear it.

You're right, my mom would disapprove if it, I remember dating a Catholic and him giving me a cross necklace and my not wearing it because of reactions from some people. My mom asked would I wear a gun necklace if that's how Jesus died? So it had always been taboo, I still would have trouble worrying what people would think of me in my LDS bubble here where I live. And as an older adult, a neighbor that I would walk with was adamant that the cross was of the devil, she was in my ward and neighborhood. 

So I'm glad to see the change too, if so. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My mom asked would I wear a gun necklace if that's how Jesus died

That was so common for awhile.  So silly and offensive.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I will have to find it, but I've heard recently that the cross is more and more accepted among the members. Like in wearing it etc. But these are from people talking about it. Maybe on reddit or discussmormonism, now I cannot remember. 

Utah vs the world, as usual

How do you tell a new convert "Sorry, we don't wear crosses. Take it back to the store"

You don't.

[mfbukowski]

 

@Sara H

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

Edited September 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 9/7/2023 at 10:49 AM, Sara H said:

The three main Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic, and none of them believe in a heavenly mother.

Goofed on formatting, see above

Edited September 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:49 AM, Sara H said:

The three main Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic, and none of them believe in a heavenly mother.

This is all modern reinterpretation nonsense.  In ancient Israel, God has a wife:

See also:  

And scholars have known that Monotheism is a Misused word in Jewish Studies for decades now.   For example, see:  Paula Fredriksen, The Many Gods of Ancient Monotheism, and a video on that topic here:

 

And, the earliest Christians (first three centuries at least) believed that men become gods and that there are multiple gods.  See for example this post from last year 09/13/2022.   Monotheism is a modern invention, relatively speaking.

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

When I was a missionary in France forty-something years ago one of our investigators was a history professor at a university.  He told us that Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was built by the Templars.  He said they originally built it NOT to "Our Lady the Mother of God", but to "Our Lady the Wife of God"; namely, Mary Magdalene.   I think he liked our openness to the idea of Jesus being married.  

I have not looked for independent verification of his statement, but it made me go, "Hmmmmmmmm." 

He had several interesting things to say along similar lines. 

[sunstoned]

Mormon doctrine was not an approved book for my mission.  Several Elders asked and were told no by the MP.   

I carred a small silver cross attached to the zip cover of my scriptures while on my mission.  No one told me to take it off and the Sisters/Elders who did comment, were supportive.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

When I was a missionary in France forty-something years ago one of our investigators was a history professor at a university.  He told us that Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was built by the Templars.  He said they originally built it NOT to "Our Lady the Mother of God", but to "Our Lady the Wife of God"; namely, Mary Magdalene.   I think he liked our openness to the idea of Jesus being married.  

I have not looked for independent verification of his statement, but it made me go, "Hmmmmmmmm." 

He had several interesting things to say along similar lines. 

Logically I believe there is no need in the paradigm for a trinity OR Godhead.

The hypothesis at least in Catholicism is that Gd is omnipotent.   If He is omnipotent why does he need two assistents?  

I am not saying I don't believe in the Godhed, I just am wondering there is a necessity such a hypothesis.  How does it function in the overall theory?

If Jesus is Jehovah AND therefore the creator of universes, ....

 

[Leaf474]

On 9/8/2023 at 6:46 AM, Sara H said:

Do you all feel that there will be new information revealed in the future? The brethren have the ability to define who heaven's mother is at any time and declare that she is on equal footing with heaven's father. Could you take a second and give some thought to how fascinating, exciting, and audacious it would be to bring the doctrine of a heavenly mother, which has already been established, into the spotlight so that we can introduce her to the rest of the world. To the best of my knowledge, we would be the pioneers in doing it.

Hi Sara H, I'm still reading through the thread, but I wanted comment on this before I forgot.

 

Speaking as a non-LDS, my impression so far of LDS theology is that the patriarchy continues on after death. Heavenly Mother takes a back seat to Heavenly Father - can't be worshiped, can't be prayed to.

 

One explanation I heard is that Heavenly Father is protecting Heavenly Mother. This simply reinforces the patriarchal view that women are sensitive and emotionally weak and so have to be protected by men.

 

Just my thoughts, not intended to offend anyone 🙂

 

On 9/8/2023 at 6:46 AM, Sara H said:

In my view, this is exactly why the church was founded in the first place; to take risks and to not function as a sub-group. My vision of a fourth Abrahamic religion includes not only the proclamation of the divinity of Heavenly Mother, but also the assertion that we are her spirit offspring and that we have spent a significant amount of time residing alongside Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In addition to this, and perhaps most crucially, we may make it known that it is acceptable to pray to the heavenly mother whenever one feels the need to seek solace from her. In my opinion, there is no better moment than the present to achieve this. Nearly 60 percent of students enrolled in colleges and universities are female. Women make up around 53 percent of our total church membership. What I am suggesting is not something that has to be feared; rather, what I am suggesting is what a self-assured religion should do, which is to believe in placing our distinctive and all-inclusive teaching front and center, rather than stowing it away in the back of the closet so that we might be perceived as a fragment of Christianity. 

 

[Leaf474]

On 9/9/2023 at 10:34 AM, Navidad said:

I find myself bemused, confused, completely disagreeing with no one and not completely agreeing with anyone on this thread! First of all this doesn't seem to me to be a religious discussion; it is a human identity - an ethnocentric discussion that is played over and over and over the world today. Who is a Mexican? Who is a Jew (many answers to that one - especially from my Messianic Jewish friends who are regularly excluded from the same). Who is an African-American? Ask your South African Anglo friend! Who is a Mormon? Who is LDS? Why the gap between the 300,000 and 1.4 million numbers? Who is blonde? Do Clairol (or in today's world - Madison Reed blondes count?) Who is an anthropologist? What are the qualifications? Who is a woman? Is a Mennonite a Protestant? How about Oneness Pentecostals? Are they Protestants? Are they Christians? How about from the Mormon point of view - are Christians Christian? (That is what I want the title of my next book to be!).

Were Visigoths Romans? Were Neanderthals human? Are French Masons Masons? How about Mexican Masons? Will Boston Red Sox fans who move to New York ever be New Yorkers? Am I an alumni of UVA if I didn't obtain a degree there, but took lots of classes? Am I a Fundamentalist because I worked at Liberty in its fundamentalist days? Can someone be born Catholic? Is a Crimean Tartar Turkish, Russian, or Ukrainian - or simply a Tartar? Can an Anglo living in Japan ever be a real Japanese?  Can a graduate of a small Evangelical college in Arkansas ever be considered a true academic and intellectual? Can a non-member ever be Christian-enough to pray in a Sacrament service? (You knew I had to throw that one in! 😃). What happens when a Believite marries a Knowite? Are they doomed as a couple? How about when two Needites marry? Are they doomed to a life of codependency? Think of the thousands of stereotypes, labels, etc. in humanity that divide us. Florida or Florida State? USC or UCLA? Iowa or Iowa State? Ed.D or Ph.D? Practitioner versus academic? Public school versus private school? Ford versus Chevy? PRI versus PAN versus PRD? In-group versus out-group? East of I-95 versus west of I-95 in Fort Lauderdale? On and on I could go, as only I can go!

I have not posted this week because I have spent hours and hours with a wonderful LDS family group of about 30 here for week-long family reunion "in the colonies." Wonderful Godly people, able to laugh at themselves, disagree among themselves (even about faith), and worried about their kids, just as are Methodist and Christian Missionary Alliance parents. They came here from Chile, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Texas. Ninety eight percent of you on this forum would instantly recognize their last name. Their mentor and guide for much of the week? Yours truly and sometimes my wife. They found great grandpa's grave; great great aunt Elizabeth's grave. We prayed together. We had a wonderful fellowship, no faith disagreements, or uncomfortable discussions. Oh, and shock above shocks, they even asked me to pray before a meal - knowing I wasn't a member! Wow! Talk about things in common? Oh my, yes. I even learned about the commerce involved in frozen barley from the Cache Valley! Wow! Frozen barley?

I won't speak for them, but I had a great time. Lots of hugs on Friday. Oh, and the elder statesman of the family, about 83 years old, pulled me aside as we parted and told me they are coming back next year; they want me to meet with them again, and he wants me to discuss something he has "always been curious about!" I waited in hushed expectancy . . . . he wants to know all about the "Gunslingers in the Mexican Colonies!" My instant reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was  "Yeh, I can do that!" - The Characters in the Colonies!

You see, there are characters in every group. There are outliers, liminal members, royalty, outcasts (different from outliers), and those on the edge of inside of every group. Oh, and lastly I think that sustaining the Brethren certainly must mean sustaining their many comments as of late about the fact that members of the LDS church are indeed Christians. Now back to where I started . . . . the most important question for me from the LDS perspective --- are Christians Christian?  Especially non-LDS Christians? If so, then why can't they pray in church?  Ha! You knew I would finish up by working that in! 🙃 Best wishes to all.

Hi Navidad, I'm glad you're back 🙂

 

About definitions, I agree they can be tricky. A definition of poetry, for example.

 

I use Christian to mean a follower of Christ. Would Saints qualify? Sure. The reason why many evangelicals recoil at the idea is because they perceive the Christ taught by the Saints to be different from the Christ they believe in.

 

Turning the situation around, do the Saints see any substantial difference between the Christ they believe in and the one taught by Evangelicals?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, manol said:

When I was a missionary in France forty-something years ago one of our investigators was a history professor at a university.  He told us that Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was built by the Templars.  He said they originally built it NOT to "Our Lady the Mother of God", but to "Our Lady the Wife of God"; namely, Mary Magdalene.   I think he liked our openness to the idea of Jesus being married.  

I have not looked for independent verification of his statement, but it made me go, "Hmmmmmmmm." 

He had several interesting things to say along similar lines. 

Yes we all have mothers and for men who are married, they have wives. 

Both of them could be named "Mary".  So ONE Mary could be seen as "the mother of God" and another could be "the wife of God."

Sweet ambiguity at every turn. 

Ain't language fun?

Or sumptim like 'at.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Just stopping by to mention that Imma hold on to the title Christian for the time being.  If I'm talking with other Christians who like to talk religion, I'll go with "Non-trinitarian Christian".  I'm also happy being known as a member of the CoJCoLDS, or LDS, or a saint, or a Mormon.   I'm happy to be known as inheritor of the Abrahmaic covenant and promise.  Happy to talk about which tribe of Israel I'm a part of.  Happy to talk about the similarities and differences between Pope and Prophet/President.  Always happy to draw a distinction between me and a Scientologist.

I have zero interest in carving out any "4th abrahamic religion" niche for me and mine. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon