Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Sara H]

13 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

With all this "your baptism wasn't good enough" going on in large swaths of Christianity, I simply can't go with @Sara H's notions that we're not Christian.  (Unless she thinks Baptists, Church of Christ folks, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are also not Christian.) 

Here's another part of the link Navidad supplied us with. It states Joseph did more himself than all of Christianity accomplished in 1700 years. That's a pretty damming statement if you ask me. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 minutes ago, Sara H said:

In this part of the piece, it says that there is no church of Christ on earth, no fruit, and no men of Christ who can perform ordinances in the name of Christ. He is talking about the Christian religion.

You seem to be missing the forest of the trees.

The Chapter is titled: The Restoration of the Gospel.

In all of this stuff that you are quoting, Mormonism is described as a restoration of the Christian religion. None of them make anything like the suggestion you are making, that we should consider ourselves a separate Abrahamic tradition. It seems to me that what you really want, you can't have - that is, a recognition that no other faith tradition has the right to claim the label of Christianity except for Mormonism. And since you can't manage that, you seem to have decided that the best way to define what you consider to be the uniqueness of Mormonism is by creating a new definitional nomenclature that creates that separation for you.

From that same page that you took that picture of:

Quote

That same organization and gospel that Christ died for, and the apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation.

This isn't describing some new Abrahamic religion. This is a claim that Mormonism is the true descendant of that original Christianity - and is thus a Christian religion.

[Sara H]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It's kind of strange, actually, that the more in-depth Christian scholars of today have been coming to understand some similar things we believe as Latter-day Saints

Here's another part of the article Navidad supplied us with. Here's a few words that describe Christianity in the article. "Diametrically opposed, troubles and perplexity, false doctrine and darkness, error and superstition, minds have been beclouded, darkness, groveling in dark." 

The restored gospel isn't meant to be a sub-group of Christianity. 

[Sara H]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You seem to be missing the forest of the trees.

The Chapter is titled: The Restoration of the Gospel

Joseph says that the devil is fooling the whole world, even through so-called Christianity. If this is true, wouldn't this be why the gospel had to be brought back? Our church was started because the devil and his angels were fooling Christians, right? Joseph also says that our faith was brought to earth because Christianity had completely fallen away. If Christianity had completely fallen away back then, what has changed in Christianity in the year 2023? Joseph also says that people who teach about Christianity are working for the devil. What's different now from two hundred years ago?

" What is it that inspires professors of Christianity? Generally, with the hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil by which he deceives the whole world" teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith p.270

" Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the christian religion would warrant the establishment of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints" history of the church v1 p.xl

" All the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels" elders journal p. 60

According to our gospel in 2023, does Christianity have more authority from God now, compared to the 1800s? 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Sara H

[Leaf474]

39 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Joseph says that the devil is fooling the whole world, even through so-called Christianity. If this is true, wouldn't this be why the gospel had to be brought back? Our church was started because the devil and his angels were fooling Christians, right? Joseph also says that our faith was brought to earth because Christianity had completely fallen away. If Christianity had completely fallen away back then, what has changed in Christianity in the year 2023? Joseph also says that people who teach about Christianity are working for the devil. What's different now from two hundred years ago?

" What is it that inspires professors of Christianity? Generally, with the hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil by which he deceives the whole world" teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith p.270

" Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the christian religion would warrant the establishment of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints" history of the church v1 p.xl

" All the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels" elders journal p. 60

According to our gospel in 2023, does Christianity have more authority from God now, compared to the 1800s? 

It sounds to me like Joseph is echoing the ideas in John 8. (Not saying I agree or disagree with him.)

 

"Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word. 44 You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father."

[Benjamin McGuire]

47 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Joseph says that the devil is fooling the whole world, even through so-called Christianity. If this is true, wouldn't this be why the gospel had to be brought back? Our church was started because the devil and his angels were fooling Christians, right? Joseph also says that our faith was brought to earth because Christianity had completely fallen away. If Christianity had completely fallen away back then, what has changed in Christianity in the year 2023? Joseph also says that people who teach about Christianity are working for the devil. What's different now from two hundred years ago?

It doesn't change the fact that what you are doing makes no sense. Mormonism isn't claiming to be a direct descendant of the different Christian sects of today - it claims to be a direct descendant of the original Christianity. When Joseph Smith was given the priesthood, he claimed he was given it by Peter, James, and John - the apostles of Jesus. This is a claim that Mormonism is a Christian religion (if not The Christian religion). It doesn't matter what has happened in other branches of Christianity - that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mormonism is the descendant of that earliest Christianity. If we claim that we are not a Christian religion, we dilute this whole claim of restoration.

As I said, this seems to be more about your issues with the rest of Christianity in the present than it does with how Mormonism has historically considered itself.

[Sara H]

22 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

It sounds to me like Joseph is echoing the ideas in John 8. (Not saying I agree or disagree with him.)

 

"Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word. 44 You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father."

Yes, I agree with what you have to say. During his whole ministry, I think Joseph was trying to explain that the restoration of our gospel was done because so-called Christians had gotten so far away from the original gospel that there was nothing left for Jesus to work with. Christianity had become a tool of the devil and his angels. What does that mean? Well, our gospel says that all priesthood authority and power can only be found in our gospel and that not a single percent of it can be found in Christianity. Maybe it's just me, but if the LDS faith has all of God's power and authority, why should we be happy with being seen as a branch of Christianity? Many here have said that LDS will never give up their Christian identity, but millions have given up their Mormon identity because the prophet asked them to. I think that if the prophet asked us to think of ourselves as the saints of the true and living gospel, the membership would most definitely give up their Christian identity. You would have Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the Saints, who are the fourth Abrahamic faith. 

[Sara H]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It doesn't change the fact that what you are doing makes no sense. Mormonism isn't claiming to be a direct descendant of the different Christian sects of today - it claims to be a direct descendant of the original Christianity. When Joseph Smith was given the priesthood, he claimed he was given it by Peter, James, and John - the apostles of Jesus. This is a claim that Mormonism is a Christian religion (if not The Christian religion). It doesn't matter what has happened in other branches of Christianity - that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mormonism is the descendant of that earliest Christianity. If we claim that we are not a Christian religion, we dilute this whole claim of restoration.

As I said, this seems to be more about your issues with the rest of Christianity in the present than it does with how Mormonism has historically considered itself.

I think that if we say we are Christians, we water down the meaning of the whole restoration. We're not even 1% of the Christian group, which has 2.6 billion members. To be honest, no one really cares about our religion. I think we should start a movement to separate ourselves from Christianity and change how our faith is seen from now on. By being seen as the fourth Abrahamic faith, we go from not even being 1% of Christianity to being 100% of 1/4 of the Abrahamic faiths, which puts us on the same level as Christianity. We go from being a guppy to an Oscar Cichlid in the fish tank. 

[Sara H]

The fourth abrahamic religion that teaches that's there is a mother God 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Sara H said:

I think that if we say we are Christians, we water down the meaning of the whole restoration.

If we say we aren't Christian, then we are denying the meaning of the whole restoration.

[Sara H]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we say we aren't Christian, then we are denying the meaning of the whole restoration.

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up. I think we spend too much time trying to prove we're Christians and not enough time showing that the restoration is real. The weight of Christianity is crushing the word of the restoration. We need to pull it out from under the pile of Christian religions and start our own pile. From there, we can let religions into the fourth Abrahamic faith that want to follow the message of the restored gospel. 

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It's kind of strange, actually, that the more in-depth Christian scholars of today have been coming to understand some similar things we believe as Latter-day Saints.  

I mentioned elsewhere that I was reading Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm.  He is a Protestant Christian.  His book discusses an ancient Israelite perspective on the council of gods described in the Old Testament that flows into New Testament times, and how it is God's plan for humans to participate in the divine council with him.  Related to the quote above, this is what he says on page 313:

"The wording of Revelation 2 is especially powerful when read against this backdrop [of Numbers 24:17 - which he says is about the dawning of the returned kingdom of God under its messiah]. Not only does Jesus say that he is the messianic morning star in Revelation 22:16, but when he says 'I will give him [who overcomes] the morning star' (Rev 2:28), he grants us the authority to rule with him.  As dramatic as these thoughts are, we’ll see one that trumps them all in the next chapter. We aren’t just God’s children and co-rulers with his Son. We’re Jesus’ siblings—and each of us will meet the council with him at our side." (bold emphasis added).

I gave this comment an upvote, and just thought I would make one clarifying comment from my own experience. I began studying Old Testament Studies in 1967 at at Evangelical college. At that time there were assignments and lessons regarding the Council of Gods and how best to understand Hebrew scriptures in light of their context. We studied things that were readily available by Evangelical scholars such as Gerald Cooke or Cook, I don't remember which, who was a Society of Friends (Quaker) scholar from the area I grew up. He was a distant friend of my father's.

I don't know much about, perhaps you can share the history and chronology of the LDS scholarly writing on the Council of Gods. I don't know who borrowed from whom, or the chronology of it all. But, depending on how you define your use of the word "today" in your first sentence, I am not sure it is completely accurate to say that non-LDS Christians "have been coming to understand some similar things that you believe as Latter-day Saints." Perhaps, and I say this with some trepidation and much respect, it might be as accurate at least to say that "LDS scholars are today more aware of non-LDS Christian teachings" because they are more open to reading the work of non-LDS scholars. Perhaps fifty years ago the writings of the predecessors of people like Dr. Heiser would go unnoticed by LDS folks because as Dr. B. Carmon Hardy, my favorite LDS historian said, the LDS folks were a bit more cocooned or encysted in the past, especially in reading, appreciating and, even more so, learning from non-LDS scholars. 

Whoever, however, or whatever, the topic is a fascinating one. I was always fascinated by the study of the giants (Nephilim) of the Old Testament. I even wrote a paper on them which has of course, been assigned to the dustbin of boring undergraduate papers. Dr. McGoldrick, the toughest professor I ever had was my advisor in my undergraduate Biblical studies and church history work from 1967-1971. The most amazing thing of all is that last I heard (probably five years ago) he was still teaching and probably giving his students a hard time at a Presbyterian Seminary in South Carolina at ninety-some years of age. I wrote him requesting his permission to dedicate a book to him, even if he didn't remember me. Of course he insisted he remembered me well and all the nice things about being a bright student - blah blah blah. He also said he wanted to read the book prior to publication - probably to grade it! Ha!  He instilled an academic discipline in me that I have tried to set aside over the years, but gratefully, never succeeded! Best wishes my friend! 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Navidad

[CA Steve]

16 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up. I think we spend too much time trying to prove we're Christians and not enough time showing that the restoration is real. The weight of Christianity is crushing the word of the restoration. We need to pull it out from under the pile of Christian religions and start our own pile. From there, we can let religions into the fourth Abrahamic faith that want to follow the message of the restored gospel. 

Hoping to increase our conversions with Christians by declaring we are not Christians, is a recipe for failure.

[Sara H]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Hoping to increase our conversions with Christians by declaring we are not Christians, is a recipe for failure.

I don't think you've thought about what a good message it would send to start a fourth Abrahamic faith based on a heavenly father and mother. I know a lot of Christians who have given up on Christianity because of all the drama and fighting. 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Sara H

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Are you saying all of those factors add up to a different Christ, for that if someone holds to at least one of those things, then they are believing in a different Christ

I tentatively think the latter more than the former

[Stormin' Mormon]

29 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up. I think we spend too much time trying to prove we're Christians and not enough time showing that the restoration is real. The weight of Christianity is crushing the word of the restoration. We need to pull it out from under the pile of Christian religions and start our own pile. From there, we can let religions into the fourth Abrahamic faith that want to follow the message of the restored gospel. 

I think @Benjamin McGuire has not only a valid point, but an unassailable one.  If we pull ourselves out from under the pile of Christian religions, how then do we then teach the Restoration?  What exactly was restored, if not OG Christianity? How can Joseph Smith have restored us to something that we are not?  It's tautologically impossible.  If we are not Christianity Restored, we have no message, no purpose, no religion.  

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I really want to know how you think the piece in the link you gave shows Christianity in a good light, because when I read it, all I see is a complete rejection of the Christian faith. 

The former president of the church, Wilford Woodruff was glowing in his praise for his childhood and youthful pastor, Robert Mason who pointed him the way to revelations, visions, and spiritual insight. I have read a number of biographies of President Woodruff (my favorite LDS president) that make this point as well. If Robert Mason, a Presbyterian pastor could have such visions. insights and help the Woodruff family in their spiritual growth, then the Holy Spirit had to have been active prior the restoration. It is just one example, but curious in its inclusion in the LDS website. I remember some years ago when Robert Mason even had his own page on the LDS website. Of course everything we read involves interpretation. So, I am merely offering you my interpretation of the article. I acknowledge that. Best wishes.

[pogi]

On 9/12/2023 at 7:35 AM, Sara H said:

We "other" them when we say that our faith is the only one on earth that God has given power and authority to. We make them "other" by not accepting that they were truly baptized as Christians. We make them "other" by telling them they can't go to God's temple. We treat them as "other" when we send missionaries to their door to convert them to our true and living faith. We "other" them when we say that their Christianity is dead and ours is alive. It keeps going and going. We have been "othering" Christians for almost two hundred years.

So, is it your position that that is a good thing or a bad thing?  I honestly can't tell.

On one hand, you seem upset that we have offended Christians by othering them; but on the other hand, you seem to want to take it even further by absolutely cutting any and all relational ties.  Would that somehow erase what Joseph Smith has said?  Would we stop believing in the apostasy and restoration?   

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

To be honest, no one really cares about our religion.

I do.

[pogi]

On 9/12/2023 at 7:00 AM, Sara H said:

Can you name one of the thousands of Christian groups that the restored message of Christ isn't here to restore?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

Don't forget, we are still considered a Christian sect.  We don't view Christianity as monolithic. 

I should also note, that we are not the only Christian sect that believes it is the one true church.  Should those other groups abandon Christianity too?  There is NO monolithic Christianity.  Period.  One doesn't have to be exactly like the rest of "Christianity" to be a Christian.  In fact, that idea is a fallacy because there is no monolithic Christianity to be like.  

On 9/12/2023 at 7:00 AM, Sara H said:

See, that's what I mean! We think of Christianity as a monolithic faith in the sense that all of it needs to be fixed, not just a portion, ALL. I've never talked to an LDS person who thought that some Christian sects were part of the restoration. Have you?

And other Christians think the same about us and each other.  We fit right in!

Edited September 13, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

47 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up.

Perhaps you may be putting too much focus on evaluating faith groups by the size of the group? Is that possible? The Mennonite faith is only 2 million world-wide. The Moravians are only 800,000 or so world-wide (I don't have the exact number). The Christian & Missionary Alliance (another of my favorite Christian groups) is only 500,000 or so members. I am not sure we  can measure the quality of a faith by the number of adherents. Just my perspective.

[Calm]

Navidad, has someone pointed you to one of Heiser’s interactions with LDS scholars (David Bokovoy is no longer a member, I do not know how that changes his views, I am posting these for Heiser’s comments mostly)?

If not, you might be interested in 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol19/iss1/16/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol19/iss1/15/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol19/iss1/14/

This is probably the most well known article on the Council of Gods.  It starts on page 220.

Dan Peterson was online talking with Evangelicals, I believe, after publishing this article and Heiser showed up to tell some of them to stop attacking him after a friend drew his attention to the conversation.  Dan contacted him to thank him and then they arranged to meet when Heiser presented a paper in Salt Lake.  At the meeting Dan invited Heiser to publish his paper in the FARMS Review and those three articles are the result.  Heiser seems to think it very odd for some reason that Dan would want to publish him or that LDS would even pay attention to Evangelical scholars’ work. (There is a video of him discussing the encounter)

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=mi

Edited September 13, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I don't think you've thought about what a good message it would send to start a fourth Abrahamic faith based on a heavenly father and mother.

And where does Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer, for which our Church is named after and who is the cornerstone of our faith and the head of the church/body of Christ, going fit into this new non-Christian Abrahamic faith?  Again, what makes it non-Christian, exactly?  Heavenly Mother?  Christians are not all monotheists, FYI.  We don't have to believe in the trinity to be Christian. 

23 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I know a lot of Christians who have given up on Christianity because of all the drama and fighting. 

Superficial changes like recategorizing our faith, without any more substantive changes, isn't going to change anything.   These people aren't likely to join our faith because of such superficial changes.  Most of these people are fed-up with organized religion in general. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up. I think we spend too much time trying to prove we're Christians and not enough time showing that the restoration is real. The weight of Christianity is crushing the word of the restoration. We need to pull it out from under the pile of Christian religions and start our own pile. From there, we can let religions into the fourth Abrahamic faith that want to follow the message of the restored gospel. 

This seems unreasonable. I don't think that your suggestion will result in the outcomes you seem to think this course of action would have. And it still isn't addressing my concerns. How can we call ourselves a restoration of what we might term original Christianity if we claim that we aren't a Christian religion?

[manol]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we say we aren't Christian, then we are denying the meaning of the whole restoration.

Yup.  It's pretty much right there in the name of the Church. 

51 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think @Benjamin McGuire has not only a valid point, but an unassailable one.  If we pull ourselves out from under the pile of Christian religions, how then do we then teach the Restoration?  What exactly was restored, if not OG Christianity? How can Joseph Smith have restored us to something that we are not?  It's tautologically impossible.  If we are not Christianity Restored, we have no message, no purpose, no religion.  

Agreed.  I think it is much less complicated and much more accurate to say "we're Christians but we're different" than "we're not Christians, but we believe in Christ and named our church after him." 

Imo the old paradigms emphasized separation, and arguably were useful in their day, and probably were realistically the best that could be done in their day.  My observation is that paradigms are shifting towards inclusion rather than exclusion in many areas (not just religion), but the old paradigms are not going away without a fight. 

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind."  (emphasis mine)