Gadianton Plumber wrote:That is one way of interpreting it. A very mopologetic way, I might add.
I do what I can.
;-)
Gadianton Plumber wrote:That is one way of interpreting it. A very mopologetic way, I might add.
Jersey Girl wrote:Gadianton Plumber wrote:That is one way of interpreting it. A very mopologetic way, I might add.
I do what I can.
;-)
GP wrote:You and Jason need to join evil forces with evil FARMS.
liz3564 wrote:My point is that you accused me of calling myself Christian because I was too embarrassed to refer to myself as a Mormon. I have never been embarrassed to refer to myself as a Mormon, but I also believe I am Christian. I worship Jesus Christ....the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. I see no contradiction in using both terms.
Out of curiosity, what Christian sect to do you belong to? Do you agree with every tenet of doctrine within your sect?
"We must come unto Christ by being baptized into his Church. Only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can we find all the truths that will help us return to our Father in Heaven. Only in the true Church of Christ can we find the authority to perform the necessary gospel ordinances." (The Restoration: Study Guide, p. 5).
"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).
It seems that we are fundamentally at an impasse. I don't see a problem with disagreeing with tenets of doctrine in any religion. I disagree with polygamy. I disagree with the racism that occurred within the Church. Am I embarrassed that the Church took the stance it did on those issues? Yes. Does that make me embarrassed to be associated with the Mormon Church overall? No.
And if I were to venture a guess, I would assume that you are extremely bitter toward the LDS Church. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (See how that works? It isn't fun to have attitudes and words put in your mouth that you haven't explicitly expressed, is it?)
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?
2 Tim 4:2 [NIV] Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Jer 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
Liz wrote:Having been a member of the Church for the past 45 years, though, I will correct you when I believe you have misrepresented a portion of Church doctrine.
You claimed that Mormons regard Jesus as "just another God", and that is not the case. As Jason pointed out, Mormons worship Jesus, and revere Him as "one with the Father".
As can I. And, you certainly have attempted to personalize my opinions, and make "guesses" and judgments regarding my attitudes and opinions which are inaccurate.
I believe that Joseph was a fallen prophet. He made grave mistakes when it came to promoting polygamy. I believe that he was genuinely inspired to write the Book of Mormon. However, my personal view is that the Book of Mormon is inspired allegory rather than historical fact.
I don't see Mormonism as a "great evil". I see it as another Christian sect where people can worship Christ and feel a sense of community. There are aspects of the Church and doctrinal tenets that I strongly disagree with, but I don't see the Church as "evil".
I have friends in many different religions. Most of my friends do not blindly follow all of the tenets of their church. Some don't even know what all of them are.
I think there is room for disagreement in any religion you choose. The important thing is to be the best person you can be.
Thews wrote:How can lies made by a con man with is magic rocks in his hat marrying a collection of little girls and passing that onto the next "saints" (BY etc.) not be evil? You're a woman, do you really believe you can't make it to the highest level of heaven (as described by Soloman Spalding befor the Book of Mormon) if you're not married to a man? Do you believe in polygamy in heaven? At what point do you call BS?
Thews wrote:My faith is my own and I believe jesus Christ was God. I also don't believe in hell and having had a NDE I at least think I know what it's like to be dead. The issue I have with this entire concept is how Mormonism, the church that considers itself "the one true church" and has it's own prophet and set of doctrine, claims to be something it's not. According to the Mormon leaders, having been LDS and now rejecting it I'm to burn extra crispy for only believing in Jesus Christ and rejecting Joseph Smith.
liz3564 wrote:You need to read some of my other threads. I completely reject polygamy. No, I don't believe that you have to be married to a man to make it to the highest degree of glory. I think there are a lot of things that none of us know that we will find out after death.
I don't believe that anyone will be required to practice polygamy in the hereafter. If it does, in fact exist, which I honestly don't know whether it does or not, it will only exist with those who consent to it.
In other words, if a man and wife get marries....the wife dies...and the man remarries....if both women are OK with being with the same man in the hereafter, they will work it out. If not, there will be someone else for one of the women to choose that they can be happy with..as far as a partnership is concerned.
I also believe the same in reverse. If a husband dies and the wife remarries, and has two husbands...it's the same deal. If they are all OK with being a family together, then so be it. Otherwise, one of the men will be able to find another woman to be with.
I don't believe that a loving God would force this lifestyle on anyone.
You have quoted things from the Journal of Discourses to me several times. You may as well put it away. The Journal of Discourses is garbage, as far as I'm concerned. It is also not considered official LDS doctrine.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
You claim that "your faith is your own"...that you don't belong to any particular sect of Christianity...and yet you refuse to allow me the same privilege, and are claiming that I am non-Christian. How does that work?
I already specified that I do not believe all the tenets of the LDS Church. There are screwy tenets in MANY different Christian sects. Just because Mormonism considers itself the "one true Church" doesn't mean that I believe it is. Nor do I believe that you will "burn extra crispy" for disassociating yourself with the Church, if that is what you did.
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..." (Doctrines and Covenants 1:30)
"they [other churches] were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19).
[There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...[u]no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences[/u], for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Joseph Fielding Smith , Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).
Question to Joseph Smith- “Do you believe the Bible?” [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).
And, no, I don't believe that Joseph Smith has anything to do with my salvation. As a matter of fact, both he and Brigham Young will get an earful from me if I ever get the chance to speak with them.
I know I am leaving a lot of holes in this discussion, but real life calls.
I'll revisit this conversation when I have some time to really devote to it.
EAllusion wrote:What are you talking about CC? The lollards were also a fringe theological movement. Tell you what. Try to give me a rough estimate of this: Take the % of Christians who hold Wycliffe-like views year by year starting around 100 CE. What is that average % by year? Compare that to RCC or Eastern Orthodox or even Lutheranism.
The evangelicals who are doing what I made fun of are just trying to define the term Christian in terms of narrow theological correctness rather than as religious taxonomy. Catholics have by far and away been the largest sect of Christians in history, which is what creates the irony.
That is more interested in the temple (old law) than in his own Atonement (new law)?
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
...
A1 Manuscripts and Textual Criticism
Extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament—complete, partial, or fragmentary—now number about 5000. None of these, however, is an autograph, an original from the writer. Probably the oldest is a fragment of the Gospel of John dated about AD 120-40. The similarities among these manuscripts is most remarkable when one considers differences of time and place of origin as well as the methods and materials of writing. Dissimilarities, however, involve omissions, additions, terminology, and different ordering of words.
Comparing, evaluating, and dating the manuscripts, placing them in family groups, and developing criteria for ascertaining the text that most likely corresponds to what the authors wrote are the tasks of critics. They are aided in their judgments by thousands of scriptural citations in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church and by a number of early translations of the Bible into other languages. The fruit of the labor of text critics is an edition of the Greek New Testament that offers not only what is judged to be the best text but also includes notes indicating variant readings among the major manuscripts. The more significant of these variants usually appear in English translations as footnotes citing what other ancient authorities say (see, for example, Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37). Critical editions of the Greek New Testament have appeared with some regularity since the work of the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus in the 16th century.
A2 Precanonical Writings
The 27 books of the New Testament are only a fraction of the literary production of the Christian communities in their first three centuries. The principal types of New Testament documents (gospel, epistle, apocalypse) were widely imitated, and the names of apostles or other leading figures were attached to writings designed to fill in the silence of the New Testament (for example, on the childhood and youth of Jesus), to satisfy the appetite for more miracles, and to argue for new and fuller revelations. As many as 50 Gospels were in circulation during this time. Many of these noncanonical Christian writings have been collected and published as New Testament Apocrypha (see Apocryphal New Testament).
...
Knowledge of the literature of the period was greatly increased by the discovery in 1945 of the library of a heretical Christian group, the Gnostics (see Gnosticism), at Naj‘Ḩammādī, Egypt. This collection, written in Coptic, has been translated and published. Major scholarly attention has been focused on the Gospel of Thomas, which purports to be sayings of Jesus, 114 in all, delivered privately to Thomas, one of the 12 apostles.
A3 The Canon
No clear records are available documenting what determined the church’s decision to adopt an official canon of Christian writings or the process by which this occurred. For Jesus and his followers, the Law, Prophets, and Writings of Judaism were “Holy Scriptures.” Interpretation of these writings was, however, governed by the work, words, and person of Jesus as he was understood by his followers. The apostles who preserved the words and deeds of Jesus and who continued his mission were regarded as having special authority. That Paul, for instance, expected his letters to be read aloud in churches and even exchanged among the churches (see Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:26 ff.) indicates that a new norm for belief and practice was developing in the Christian communities. This norm consisted of two parts: the Lord (preserved in the “gospels”) and the Apostles (preserved primarily in “epistles”).
Tracing the history of the development of the New Testament canon by noting which of the books were quoted or cited by the early Fathers of the Church is an uncertain process. Too much is made of silence. It seems that the earliest attempt to establish a canon was made about ad 150 by a heretical Christian named Marcion whose acceptable list included the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles, edited in a strong anti-Jewish direction. Perhaps opposition to Marcion accelerated efforts toward a canon of wide acceptance.
By AD 200, 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament seem to have been generally regarded as authoritative. Local preferences prevailed here and there, and some differences existed between the eastern and western churches. Generally speaking, the books that were disputed for some time but were finally included were James, Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation. Other books, widely favored but finally rejected, were Barnabas, 1 Clement, Hermas, and the Didache; the authors of these books are generally referred to as the Apostolic Fathers.
The 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sent to the churches under his jurisdiction in 367, ended all uncertainty about the limits of the New Testament canon. In the so-called festal letter, preserved in a collection of annual Lenten messages given by Athanasius, he listed as canonical the 27 books that remain the contents of the New Testament, although he arranged them in a different order. Those books of the New Testament, in their present-day order, are the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. See separate articles on the books of the New Testament.
...
While this may be true in a popular sense, it isn't true in any theological sense. The problem occurs in the notion of Jesus being wholly man. As theologians have noted, you can't have Jesus be fully man and also preexistent (unless you assume the preexistence of all humanity). Jesus is what happens when the preexisting second member of the Godhead is united with that which is created to become Jesus. Even referring to the preexistence of the Messiah has been noted as being problematic, and referring to Jesus as preexisting within the intentions of deity doesn't adequately deal with the topic either. Jesus is created. This doesn't mean in orthodox theology that the second person of the Godhead that exists prior to Jesus is created. The second half of this is also an issue. Jesus isn't, technically speaking, God. He is both God and man. But it isn't appropriate in Christian theology to refer to the manhood of Jesus as God.Jesus is a god. He has always been a god, is co-eternal with the Father (and even a reflection of Him).