Dan McClellen vs. Inspiring Philosophy on the Question: "Are Mormons Christian?"

[Devobah]

A while ago, Dan McClellen (referred to as "DM" or "Dan" from this point on) responded to Inspiring Philosophy (Michael Jones("MJ" or "Michael")) on the question "Are Mormons Christian"?

 

The two have since gone back and forth and have made the habit of responding to each other. For those that don't know, DM is a Bible scholar and a member of the LDS church; though it should be noted that he is what one might call marginal in many of his beliefs. He's answered the why a few times and you can find that on his channel. 

In the internet age, and more recently in the internet saying that people use to reject opinions outright: "____________ detected. Opinion rejected." In evangelical or orthodox circles the blank would be "Mormon." However when it comes to bible study this seems to take on a different meaning. If scholarship is solid and agreed upon, the source doesn't seem to matter. But that's not what this post is about. 

MJ, unsurprisingly, says that Mormons are not Christian, and then provides a list of what makes someone Christian. He then takes it a step further by responding to the people (Mormon or not) who claim that this is a form of the "No True Scotsmen" Fallacy by saying that there is a set of creeds that define what a Christian is. He also provides a list as follows:

- Belief in One God

- The Trinity

- The Fall of Humanity

- Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man

- Jesus is born of the Virgin Mary

- Jesus physically died and physically resurrected

- Jesus Second Coming

- Inspiration of Scripture

DM responds by saying that the definition doesn't have meaning because not everyone who identifies as such had a seat at the table to discuss the "rules" of being a Christian. This is likely seen by many others as a weak response because of the creeds and the infighting that the early church had. 

DM's insistence that "words don't have meaning" is what brings his argument down. MJ is providing what he believes is the criteria for what makes one a Christian. 

I'm no scholar. I'm barely a teacher in a high school. But I definitely think that Dan could have gone about this a bit differently. You can watch the video for full context, and also keep in mind that there are a few videos going back and forth between the two. I've only offered Cliff Notes 

My stance on this is as follows: words and definitions do matter. However, what makes one a Christian is still something that is disputed amongst Evangelical circles much more lately. Catholics and Orthodox seem to be more willing to accept others who don't agree with things like baptismal regeneration and the role of the church as long as they hold to what is mentioned above. Protestant circles are where it gets a little more tricky. Many of those who identify with Protestant branches of Christianity are more strict with those who call themselves Christian. Many are adamant that Catholics and Orthodox are not Christian because of unbiblical doctrines. One only need to type the VERY loaded search of "Why Aren't Catholics Christian?" to get various answers. 

This link is the first one that popped up when I typed in the question: https://g3min.org/roman-catholicism-is-not-christianity/

Honestly, it is a pretty succinct response to the question from the evangelical viewpoint. The blogger argues that though they agree with Catholics on pretty much everything above, the beliefs about the solas and a few other key things (like insisting baptism saves) drags them down.

Latter-Day Saints are just a special breed of having disagreements with both! And that's what makes us fun to argue with.

[InCognitus]

12 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I'm no scholar. I'm barely a teacher in a high school. But I definitely think that Dan could have gone about this a bit differently. You can watch the video for full context, and also keep in mind that there are a few videos going back and forth between the two. I've only offered Cliff Notes 

My stance on this is as follows: words and definitions do matter. However, what makes one a Christian is still something that is disputed amongst Evangelical circles much more lately. Catholics and Orthodox seem to be more willing to accept others who don't agree with things like baptismal regeneration and the role of the church as long as they hold to what is mentioned above. Protestant circles are where it gets a little more tricky. Many of those who identify with Protestant branches of Christianity are more strict with those who call themselves Christian. Many are adamant that Catholics and Orthodox are not Christian because of unbiblical doctrines. One only need to type the VERY loaded search of "Why Aren't Catholics Christian?" to get various answers. 

I've read a lot of Dan's articles and have watched enough of his videos to have a little understanding of his approach to the topics he discusses, and I think he dealt with the issues quite well in the video you posted.  How do you think he could have gone about it differently?

As for his discussion about word definitions, I think he means it literally in that any meaning a word might posses is all in our mind and not in the word itself:  "All meaning associated with communication resides entirely and exclusively within the mind* of the individual articulating a linguistic expression or the individual interpreting a linguistic expression" (See his blog article, No, Words Do Not 'Have Meaning').  So I think he is quite right about the meaning of the word "Christian".  The word is often redefined by groups who are trying to draw boundaries around themselves and exclude people the group doesn't agree with.  

[Calm]

If MJ’s definition is valid and one must accept the creeds, I believe that would render the Saints of the New Testament who followed Christ nonChristian.

Does he deal with the problem the creeds were at least ill defined originally?

But obviously Dan wins hands down.  Deadpool.  Nothing else is needed.

Added:  Ha!  I am so proud of myself.  I hadn’t watched the video before I posted (just up to the Deadpool mention).  See, Mom, I have been paying attention!   

Edited August 23, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

I will say, that due to a very acrimonious and personal squabble I had with him in the past, I generally don't trust him until I hear him out. This time DM does a good job.

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

How do you think he could have gone about it differently?

I think that he spent a bit too much time trying to help people understand his “words don’t have meaning” and should have spent time on the fact that the definition that supposedly “unites” Christians isn’t universally accepted at all. 

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I will say, that due to a very acrimonious and personal squabble I had with him in the past, I generally don't trust him until I hear him out. This time DM does a good job.

Dan describes himself as a Bible scholar who puts data over dogma. He’s a member of the church for familial reasons mainly iirc. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Dan describes himself as a Bible scholar who puts data over dogma. He’s a member of the church for familial reasons mainly iirc. 

I'm not sure if you are saying the above based on personal knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to judge Dan or speculate about his beliefs and his testimony of the church without knowing him personally or being a member of his ward. 

I don't know him personally, but he has made it clear in several interviews that his personal beliefs are off limits in his academic pursuits and discussions.  He has said (at least a year ago) that he is an active member of the church and holds a position on the ward council in his ward (see below), but he doesn't say anything about his beliefs beyond that, and he does that intentionally so that he can maintain a strict boundary between his academic pursuits and social media topics, and his personal beliefs and personal life.   

See for example what he said as quoted in my post from 08/27/2023:

On 8/27/2023 at 1:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Listen to the video interview starting at approximately the 4:37:40 mark.  Below is a rough transcription, slightly edited for brevity: 

Quote

John:  But, but anything else about your story that you wanna share, that you haven't been able to share so far as a way to close?....  Are you still remaining an active believing Mormon?

Dan: Yeah, I'm an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. In fact, I’m on my ward council.

John:  What does that mean?... You have a calling that includes you in that council?

Dan:  [affirmative response].... 

John:  You said a member, but a believing member, on some level?

Dan:  [laughs]

John:  Or do you not like to use that term?

Dan:  Well one thing I’ve done on social media is say my beliefs are off-limits.  I don’t talk about those.  And so people say, well how do you believe this, how do you believe that, and how do you believe the other?   And my... defense is to say, with all due respect you don’t know what I believe, and nobody’s going to know what I believe, outside of the places where that is relevant such as in my ward building and things like that.  So I don’t say that to hint that I’m not a believing member. I say that to maintain that strict boundary that I have set up, that I will say I'm active in the church, but just for the interest of that boundary that I've set up and my methodological consistency, I don’t address what I believe.   And so I considered calling myself a believing member to fall into addressing what I believe.

John:  Got it.  Okay

I think this is a reasonable position for him to take on social media for the scholarly platform he is trying to achieve. 

Because of the boundary Dan has set as described above (and I think setting those boundaries is a wise choice on Dan's part), we can't use Dan's "Data over Dogma" channel or his academic writings to understand what Dan personally believes.  

But Dan has said things in videos and interviews that can give us some clues to what he may believe personally.  For example, see what he said in a different video as quoted from my post from 09/05/2023:

On 9/5/2023 at 1:49 PM, InCognitus said:

1:52:22 - John asks Dan about how the current prophets and apostles run the church.  Dan responds that he's not in their position and therefore isn't burdened by their responsibilities, so he does not see everything they are seeing and worrying about, or what they are tasked with improving or changing or maintaining.  He says that if he were suddenly put into a church administration position like that, he says he is sure his perspectives would change.  Positionality has a lot to do with how we see things.  Dan says he has spoken with church leaders in the past and has usually come away with more respect for them and their position as a result of those conversations.  He says having such a position is not a burden he would wish upon his worst enemy because he could not imagine how difficult it must be to prioritize the concern for the one over the ninety-nine, but also be in the position that they are.  So he is not in any position to criticize any of their doings.

1:55:48 - John asks Dan if he was called to be a bishop or a mission president, if he would be inclined to accept a calling like that.   Dan says that someone would have dropped the ball if he ever receives a calling like that, but says that he has never turned down a calling in the church in his life, and that has been a priority of his, to serve where he is asked to serve, in whatever capacity he is asked to serve.  

2:24:48 - Dan comments on what faith is - We are not being asked to historically prove anything, we are asked to have a testimony.  Brigham Young said a testimony is not about the data or the facts, a testimony is something different from that.  

Comments like those I paraphrased above don't sound like they are coming from someone who is only in the church for family reasons.  Of course those comments are from a year ago, so I don't know if things have changed recently.

But the bottom line is that I don't think its fair to comment on Dan's personal beliefs without first hand information.  It would be terrible to start or spread rumors about his beliefs based on pure speculation.

Edited August 24, 2024 by InCognitus

[Devobah]

21 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure if you are saying the above based on personal knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to judge Dan or speculate about his beliefs and his testimony of the church without knowing him personally or being a member of his ward. 

I don't know him personally, but he has made it clear in several interviews that his personal beliefs are off limits in his academic pursuits and discussions.  He has said (at least a year ago) that he is an active member of the church and holds a position on the ward council in his ward (see below), but he doesn't say anything about his beliefs beyond that, and he does that intentionally so that he can maintain a strict boundary between his academic pursuits and social media topics, and his personal beliefs and personal life.   

See for example what he said as quoted in my post from 08/27/2023:

Because of the boundary Dan has set as described above (and I think setting those boundaries is a wise choice on Dan's part), we can't use Dan's "Data over Dogma" channel or his academic writings to understand what Dan personally believes.  

But Dan has said things in videos and interviews that can give us some clues to what he may believe personally.  For example, see what he said in a different video as quoted from my post from 09/05/2023:

Comments like those I paraphrased above don't sound like they are coming from someone who is only in the church for family reasons.  Of course those comments are from a year ago, so I don't know if things have changed recently.

But the bottom line is that I don't think its fair to comment on Dan's personal beliefs without first hand information.  It would be terrible to start or spread rumors about his beliefs based on pure speculation.

You’ve paid attention to the man longer than I have. I respect that. 
 

I will not be able to provide satisfactory CFRs for my statements, as many of them are gathered from what other supporters of Dan have said about his beliefs. I’ll try and be better in that regard. 

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I will not be able to provide satisfactory CFRs for my statements, as many of them are gathered from what other supporters of Dan have said about his beliefs. I’ll try and be better in that regard. 

Thank you.

I wasn't expecting a CFR, I just was expressing caution about repeating things we have heard from others without firsthand knowledge.

[teddyaware]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure if you are saying the above based on personal knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to judge Dan or speculate about his beliefs and his testimony of the church without knowing him personally or being a member of his ward. 

I don't know him personally, but he has made it clear in several interviews that his personal beliefs are off limits in his academic pursuits and discussions.  He has said (at least a year ago) that he is an active member of the church and holds a position on the ward council in his ward (see below), but he doesn't say anything about his beliefs beyond that, and he does that intentionally so that he can maintain a strict boundary between his academic pursuits and social media topics, and his personal beliefs and personal life.   

See for example what he said as quoted in my post from 08/27/2023:

Because of the boundary Dan has set as described above (and I think setting those boundaries is a wise choice on Dan's part), we can't use Dan's "Data over Dogma" channel or his academic writings to understand what Dan personally believes.  

But Dan has said things in videos and interviews that can give us some clues to what he may believe personally.  For example, see what he said in a different video as quoted from my post from 09/05/2023:

Comments like those I paraphrased above don't sound like they are coming from someone who is only in the church for family reasons.  Of course those comments are from a year ago, so I don't know if things have changed recently.

But the bottom line is that I don't think its fair to comment on Dan's personal beliefs without first hand information.  It would be terrible to start or spread rumors about his beliefs based on pure speculation.

Not that long ago I engaged in a discussion with him on this board. During our interchange he frankly informed me that he holds a strongly pro abortion position, even going so far as to say he believes the choice to have an abortion is ennobling and empowering to women. Perhaps a fair proportion of the rank and file of the church no longer view this kind extreme pro death advocacy to be evidence of a rejection of the teachings of the prophets?

Edited August 24, 2024 by teddyaware

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Devobah said:

Dan describes himself as a Bible scholar who puts data over dogma. He’s a member of the church for familial reasons mainly iirc. 

His ability to discern data is highly suspect, imho. Which is why I don't trust him until I fully hear him out.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not that long ago I engaged in a discussion with him on this board. During our interchange he frankly informed me that he holds a strongly pro abortion position, even going so far as to say he believes the choice to have an abortion is ennobling and empowering to women. Perhaps a fair proportion of the rank and file of the church no longer view this kind extreme pro death advocacy to be evidence of a rejection of the teachings of the prophets?

He also holds some other extremely passionate positions, political in nature, which he has expressed on this board and on Facebook (I used to be a FB friend of his until he unfriended me). He quit this board once because too many people wouldn't go along with a particularly passionate political position he holds to. This leads me to believe that he is unlikely to be led by the Spirit. Or, at least, the spirit that I am familiar with. If he told me it was raining, I would not only glance outside, but would put my hand out to see if water was actually falling from the clouds. And stopped clocks are right twice a day. Analog ones, at least. He may be digital, which suggests chronological accuracy only once per day.

[Buckeye]

Good post. I agree words matter. The ‘no seat at the table’ argument would essentially mean there can never be a definition because the day after a definition is set someone new will be born who wasn’t part of the decision group. 
 

My take is from a practical bent. LDS doctrine is that only we have authority and only our ordinances are valid. So long as we hold that position, we’ll be excluded from the ‘Christian club’  That’s not surprising in my view. Why would someone embrace us as Christians when we reject their claims to authority and validity?

Club membership requirements have and will continue to morph over time. The two biggest members - Catholics and Protestants - rejected each other to the point of war centuries ago. Now they accept each others ordinances. We do a lot of good work with other Christian groups.  But so long as we hold to being the only true church, we’ll be kept out of the club. 
 

 

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Good post. I agree words matter. The ‘no seat at the table’ argument would essentially mean there can never be a definition because the day after a definition is set someone new will be born who wasn’t part of the decision group. 
 

My take is from a practical bent. LDS doctrine is that only we have authority and only our ordinances are valid. So long as we hold that position, we’ll be excluded from the ‘Christian club’  That’s not surprising in my view. Why would someone embrace us as Christians when we reject their claims to authority and validity?

Club membership requirements have and will continue to morph over time. The two biggest members - Catholics and Protestants - rejected each other to the point of war centuries ago. Now they accept each others ordinances. We do a lot of good work with other Christian groups.  But so long as we hold to being the only true church, we’ll be kept out of the club. 
 

 

We accept them as Christians. They don't return the favor, but who set them as gatekeepers anyway?

The squatter takes the house but doesn't own it. They seem to think that they own the house by adverse possession, but when the true Owner returns...

Edited August 24, 2024 by Stargazer

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

We accept them as Christians. They don't return the favor, but who set them as gatekeepers anyway?

The squatter takes the house but doesn't own it. They seem to think that they own the house by adverse possession, but when the true Owner returns...

We set them as gatekeepers the minute we care what they think. 
 

We don’t accept the validity of their ordinances. They do accept each others ordinances as valid. I believe that is the key sticking point.
 

I’m not saying we’re wrong. But we shouldn’t be surprised when faith groups we deem to be in apostacy and whose creeds we call an abomination don’t feel like including us in their club. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by Buckeye

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

We set them as gatekeepers the minute we care what they think. 

I used to care, but don't any longer.

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

We don’t accept the validity of their ordinances. They do accept each others ordinances as valid. I believe that is the key sticking point.
 

It goes slightly further (at least on the surface) we don't accept the Nicene and other creeds, don't accept the Trinity, and (gasp!) we do (or did) accept polygamy.

But our requiring them to be re-baptized before accepting them as members is surely part of that.

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I’m not saying we’re wrong. But we shouldn’t be surprised when faith groups we deem to be in apostacy and whose creeds we call an abomination don’t feel like including us in their club. 

I'm not surprised, actually. 

Personally, I don't want to be a member of their club, considering their club is a pale imitation of the True Club. ROFL!

I still call them Christians, however. 

[Buckeye]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not that long ago I engaged in a discussion with him on this board. During our interchange he frankly informed me that he holds a strongly pro abortion position, even going so far as to say he believes the choice to have an abortion is ennobling and empowering to women. Perhaps a fair proportion of the rank and file of the church no longer view this kind extreme pro death advocacy to be evidence of a rejection of the teachings of the prophets?

I’m a pro choice member. I don’t like abortion and don’t know anyone who does. But I view most abortions as occurring at a time when the spirit hasn’t yet entered the body and so don’t view the termination as a death, much less a wrongful death. There is no separation caused between spirit and body  

My view is in harmony with brigham young and other 19th century leaders (and frankly most of Protestant Christianity at the time) but not with current church policy. I’m fine with that.  The church doesn’t have a great track record on policies on sexual issues. We previously opposed interracial marriage, contraception, oral sex and so forth.
 

Our doctrine (temple and scriptures) gives ample support to the belief that a spirit does not enter at conception. And our doctrine is clear that we lived before this life. Life doesn’t have a beginning, much less a beginning at conception. We are eternal beings who the gods found and taught a better way.  

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Good post. I agree words matter. The ‘no seat at the table’ argument would essentially mean there can never be a definition because the day after a definition is set someone new will be born who wasn’t part of the decision group. 
 

My take is from a practical bent. LDS doctrine is that only we have authority and only our ordinances are valid. So long as we hold that position, we’ll be excluded from the ‘Christian club’  That’s not surprising in my view. Why would someone embrace us as Christians when we reject their claims to authority and validity?

Club membership requirements have and will continue to morph over time. The two biggest members - Catholics and Protestants - rejected each other to the point of war centuries ago. Now they accept each others ordinances. We do a lot of good work with other Christian groups.  But so long as we hold to being the only true church, we’ll be kept out of the club. 
 

 

We embrace them as Christians even though they reject our claims to authority and validity, so maybe that's why it is surprising to some members that they aren't capable of doing the same.

And that's also probably why so many members see their rejection of our claim of being Christians as coming from a place of defensiveness and sense of being theologically threatened by the church (not saying they are, only that it comes across that way sometimes).

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

My view is in harmony with brigham young and other 19th century leaders (and frankly most of Protestant Christianity at the time) but not with current church policy. I’m fine with that.  

Are you saying that BY and other church leaders were supportive of a woman's ability to choose abortion?  Or are you just speaking about your view of when the spirit enters the body?

Edited August 24, 2024 by bluebell

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He also holds some other extremely passionate positions, political in nature, which he has expressed on this board and on Facebook (I used to be a FB friend of his until he unfriended me). He quit this board once because too many people wouldn't go along with a particularly passionate political position he holds to. This leads me to believe that he is unlikely to be led by the Spirit. Or, at least, the spirit that I am familiar with. If he told me it was raining, I would not only glance outside, but would put my hand out to see if water was actually falling from the clouds. And stopped clocks are right twice a day. Analog ones, at least. He may be digital, which suggests chronological accuracy only once per day.

I have avoided Facebook completely.  Now you make me feel like I've missed out  

[Calm]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not that long ago I engaged in a discussion with him on this board

I am back four years in reading his posts (most are quite informative so am enjoying the refresh) and haven’t come across any pro choice posts of his (just one post mentions abortion iirc). Are you sure it was recent?

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am back four years in reading his posts (most are quite informative so am enjoying the refresh) and haven’t come across any pro choice posts of his. Are you sure it was recent?

Even if you find a "pro choice post" there is a difference between being able to choose and "strongly pro abortion", "choice to have an abortion is ennobling and empowering to women" and "extreme pro death advocacy".

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The ‘no seat at the table’ argument would essentially mean there can never be a definition because the day after a definition is set someone new will be born who wasn’t part of the decision group. 

Dan’s view on definitions if I understand it correctly is definitions are highly limited in their ability to describe the cognitive categories people create for language. We have had words for much longer than dictionaries.  Paraphrasing…dictionaries typically are not what teach people what words mean, hearing and seeing the words being used are what conveys their meaning.  His view of the purpose of definitions is something I am not going to try and summarize.

Language is a living experience, constantly changing and to set a stake in the ground and claim this is what a word means ignores the force of language like setting a stake on the beach and declaring this is the edge of the coast only to have a wave come up past it, eventually pulling the stake out to sea.  (My analogy, not his).

He uses how we imagine “furniture” in our minds a lot as an example, we do not define it so much as simply are aware of what it means to us. It will always be much more than what we read in a dictionary. 

So I believe he means the above when he says everyone has a seat at the table to decide what a word means, everyone has their own personal perception of a word, their own set of experiences attached to it that gives it meaning and this is an open process and when we use words with others, we can influence and therefore change their perceptions of the word.

So there may be definitions out there, but one typically can’t force others to accept limitations one wants to place on it unless they accept one’s authority to do so or can be forced to do so such as legal definitions enforced by the government. 

It’s like arguing a rainbow can’t be a symbol of LGBTQ+ because it’s been a symbol of childhood and also faith….those preferences for those traditions haven’t stopped it being used to communicate an ideal to great purpose in the last half century. 

People can agree among themselves to use a word a certain way. This is what has happened with “Christian”…certain groups have determined for themselves limits on the word by ignoring how it is used by others, including by early Christians who were the first labeled as such and those who named them.  But no one else has given these groups the authority to define “Christian” for everyone.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Rain said:

Even if you find a "pro choice post" there is a difference between being able to choose and "strongly pro abortion", "choice to have an abortion is ennobling and empowering to women" and "extreme pro death advocacy".

I am not arguing any position here or describing Dan’s position, just saying there is nothing even close to resembling teddy’s description, which conversation I am interested in reading.  I used “pro choice” to indicate I was looking for a broad selection rather than teddy’s specific description, not to debate anything.

I think there was one post of Dan’s that mentioned abortion and it wasn’t in response to anything teddy said nor was part of an ongoing commentary.  So even using the broadest search terms I am not finding anything even eyeballing each post. I am hoping teddy can provide more precise info so I can track the conversation down. 

I am curious if teddy’s description of Dan’s position will match my perception of it. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The two biggest members - Catholics and Protestants - rejected each other to the point of war centuries ago.

As Christians?  In general?  I know there was a lot of polemic of being heretics and such and to be open, I haven’t studied the time period much, but I have been under the impression the practice of denying being Christian to others who also profess to follow Christ was limited to the more extreme groups of either faith (some of which are massive and others which are smaller groups of these largest ones), but those doing so I thought have never been a majority even so as to place them in anything but a self claimed right of authority to define Christian as a limited group.  The closest would be the official Catholic definition of who belongs to the body of Christ if that is what defines a Christian (and I can’t remember if this last is specified or only inferred by many in the Catechism, I should check) for them since Catholics are the majority Christian denomination worldwide, but even there they are often a minority in a specific locality. 
 

Even there if being Christian means belonging to the Body of Christ which requires an acceptable baptism of the correct form and understanding officially, there are Catholics who strongly disagree and refuse to use such a definition as well as plenty of others who refuse to accept the Catholic catechism as dictating Christian doctrine (not sure if that is an appropriate way to describe what the catechism is to Catholics).

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Or are you just speaking about your view of when the spirit enters the body?

My guess is this…and here’s an interesting article, though hard to read on a phone.

https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/047-42-46.pdf

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm