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

[Calm]

Here is the article referred to in the above quote:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N02_14.pdf

Edited August 24, 2024 by Calm

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

.

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?

The latter. Brigham and others in his day taught the spirit entered at a point when the mother felt movement - the quickening. He didn’t support abortion. Today, thankfully, we have means to detect pregnancy and perform terminations very early in a pregnancy, in particular through medication. That’s what I mean when I say I’m pro-choice. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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

You're not!  

These days I only use FB for groups I want to participate in, such as our ward Facebook group. And even then my participation is minimal.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

I am wondering if you misunderstood him given the most recent comment of his I can find on abortion is this:

Quote

. I was long opposed to abortion, and after reading as much of the research and the law as I could, I became convinced that my position was irrational. I find the act abhorrent, personally, but I cannot argue against the facts. 

Seems unlikely he would find something he personally sees as “abhorrent” as ennobling and empowering.  I think it much more likely, though I still would want to see him say this before I assume this is his position, that he might see it as ennobling and empowering for women to be given the ability to make that choice rather than the option be removed….which accords to the way God operates as in giving us laws, but still giving us opportunities where we can choose to follow the law or not.

Preventing women from having access to abortion or even just limiting their access could be seen as removing choice and if one can’t make a choice, one can’t make a noble or an abhorrent choice or anything between.

 

Edited August 25, 2024 by Calm

[3DOP]

On 8/24/2024 at 8:02 AM, 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. 
 

 

Now they accept each others ordinances?

The Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments. Does that correspond with seven LDS/Protestant ordinances? 

You say that "now" they accept each others ordinances. The first sacrament is baptism. I think you would agree that that is the first ordinance. You can correct me. The Catholic Church has always held that anyone of either sex, of any religion or non religion can baptize if they intend to what the Catholic Church does.  The only person who is always unqualified to baptise, according to the Catholic Church, is the person who seeks baptism.

What LDS/ Protestant groups believe that anyone can administer baptism, except the person being baptised? When I was a Baptist, 35 years ago, we didn't accept the baptisms that were performed by a Catholic priest, much less by a non Christian who intended to do what the Catholic Church does. 

I don't think it is accurate to say that Proestants and Catholics now accept each others "ordinances". But maybe I misunderstand what ordinances are.