Mormonism's accomodating nature

[_charity]

Hi Charity, you wrote on page 1:

One of the major features of the Restoration is that we can all approach God. We don't have to go through ministers, preaches, popes, etc. to tell us what to think about the scriptures.

Did the world need the "Restoration" to know this? Peoples have been doing that through all time. Not all of course. But enough to have 1,000 +/- so-called Christian sects. LDSism being one of them.

Just for clarification, that you might have already addressed: Are you suggesting Mormons do not give any attention to what their Bishop, EQP, Stake President, GA, Prophet says "about the scriptures"? Warm regards, Roger

You should read what the Christian world of 1820 believed. Much of what mainstream Christianity believes and teaches today came from that earth-shaking paradigm chaning event--the First Vision. Not that it is recognized in the mainstream churches. As people hear the truths of the restored Gospel, those truths resonante within them. They changed what their denominations believed. 100, even 50 years ago, earthly relationships ended at death, according Old Testament mainstream Christianity. "Til death do you part." Yet today most mainstream Christians today proclaim that their closest personal relationships will endure. That came from the restored Gospel.


The existence of a denomination does not mean it taught that God was approachable. And the general teaching was that God was not. He had spoken, the canon was closed. Interpretation was to be had only throuh the parson, minister, pope, etc.

Of course, we listen to General Authorities, bishops, stake presidents. But that has never relieved us of the responsibiility for studying the scriptures on our own, and receiving our own light and knowledge.

[_John Larsen]

You should read what the Christian world of 1820 believed. Much of what mainstream Christianity believes and teaches today came from that earth-shaking paradigm chaning event--the First Vision. Not that it is recognized in the mainstream churches. As people hear the truths of the restored Gospel, those truths resonante within them. They changed what their denominations believed.

"Much of what mainstream Christianity believes" is quite a bold claim. Can you cite a case in point?

John

[_charity]

You should read what the Christian world of 1820 believed. Much of what mainstream Christianity believes and teaches today came from that earth-shaking paradigm chaning event--the First Vision. Not that it is recognized in the mainstream churches. As people hear the truths of the restored Gospel, those truths resonante within them. They changed what their denominations believed.

"Much of what mainstream Christianity believes" is quite a bold claim. Can you cite a case in point?

John

I already gave you the instance of the continuation of relationships after this life. If you go to the web for "Christian" marriage ceremonies, you won't find a single one which includes the phrase "till death do you part." Most say something like "as long as you live" or "endure." I have evangelical friends who explain this as continuing past this life. Virtually every Christian wedding ceremony a generation ago married couple until death parted them.

Case in point.

Another case in point.

The current SBC instruction manual includes the doctrine that man created in the image of God means that our physical features mirror God's appearance. That is a sea change from the previous incorporeal God of their teachings.

That was a second case in point.

[_the road to hana]

You should read what the Christian world of 1820 believed. Much of what mainstream Christianity believes and teaches today came from that earth-shaking paradigm chaning event--the First Vision. Not that it is recognized in the mainstream churches. As people hear the truths of the restored Gospel, those truths resonante within them. They changed what their denominations believed.

"Much of what mainstream Christianity believes" is quite a bold claim. Can you cite a case in point?

John

I already gave you the instance of the continuation of relationships after this life. If you go to the web for "Christian" marriage ceremonies, you won't find a single one which includes the phrase "till death do you part." Most say something like "as long as you live" or "endure." I have evangelical friends who explain this as continuing past this life. Virtually every Christian wedding ceremony a generation ago married couple until death parted them.

Case in point.

Another case in point.

The current SBC instruction manual includes the doctrine that man created in the image of God means that our physical features mirror God's appearance. That is a sea change from the previous incorporeal God of their teachings.

That was a second case in point.

Charity, can you document (1) that no Christian church was marrying prior to 1830 using words other than "til' death do you part," (2) that no Christian church prior to 1830 believed in the permanence of marriage or families, or (3) that no Christian church prior to 1830 believed that man is created in God's image from a corporeal standpoint?

[_John Larsen]

The current SBC instruction manual includes the doctrine that man created in the image of God means that our physical features mirror God's appearance. That is a sea change from the previous incorporeal God of their teachings.

That was a second case in point.

John

[_dartagnan]

I already gave you the instance of the continuation of relationships after this life.

Can you never think for yourself? You're quoting Dan Peterson word for word almost. The fact is this is nonsense. Most Christians have traditionally believed their relationships continue in the next life. The only think unique about Joseph Smith's doctrine is that he said husband and wives remain spouses to each other, which flat out contradicts biblical teaching.

If you go to the web for "Christian" marriage ceremonies, you won't find a single one which includes the phrase "till death do you part." Most say something like "as long as you live" or "endure." I have evangelical friends who explain this as continuing past this life. Virtually every Christian wedding ceremony a generation ago married couple until death parted them.

What is your point? Mormonism rubbed off on them? You can't be serious.

The current SBC instruction manual includes the doctrine that man created in the image of God means that our physical features mirror God's appearance. That is a sea change from the previous incorporeal God of their teachings.

You don't know what incorporeal means obviously. An incorporeal being can still have an image.

Your so-called "points" are based in your own screwed up perceptions. And for the record the phrase "till death do us part" has a legal history behind it for which it was created. It was not a theological statement in any sense, as Mormons have traditionally snagged it and beat it into the ground with little or no notice from those who actually implement it. As a baptist kid I always believed I would see my family in the next life, and so did the rest of my family.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Charity, thanks for your response posted below:

You should read what the Christian world of 1820 believed. Much of what mainstream Christianity believes and teaches today came from that earth-shaking paradigm chaning event--the First Vision. Not that it is recognized in the mainstream churches. As people hear the truths of the restored Gospel, those truths resonante within them. They changed what their denominations believed. 100, even 50 years ago, earthly relationships ended at death, according Old Testament mainstream Christianity. "Til death do you part." Yet today most mainstream Christians today proclaim that their closest personal relationships will endure. That came from the restored Gospel.

RM: Maybe true but to credit LDSism for that change, i think is a bit presumptuous, and results more from a romanticized interpretation. Most wedding cerrimonies no longer say "...to obey..." either. Don't think that fits LDS evolution?? I think people reach conclusions that seem more natural than not. Even in the mythology of Heaven.

The existence of a denomination does not mean it taught that God was approachable. And the general teaching was that God was not. He had spoken, the canon was closed. Interpretation was to be had only throuh the parson, minister, pope, etc.

RM: I do have some idea of what was taught in earlier times. Generally, it is still being taught: Man's Fall, Jesus Redeems, the 3-in-1 Trinity, God is approached through prayer, the Bible is God's word, and the Book of Mormon is not to be believed. Can you find refutation of those "mainstream Christian beliefs"? Especially of the last one, who else believes the Book of Mormon to be new needed scripture?

Of course, we listen to General Authorities, bishops, stake presidents. But that has never relieved us of the responsibiility for studying the scriptures on our own, and receiving our own light and knowledge.

RM: Of course "we" do. And i, for one, took advantage of that to broaden my understanding of Judeo-Christian history/legend/mythology and the same re LDSism. Consequently, i like many others emerged with a different conclusion than that with which i started. Which should be the result of most careful studies. It was time well spent.

Charity, thanks for your sincerity. While i no longer see Mormonism as you do, we are both within our "God" given right to believe as we will/do, with no reward, or punishment attached. Warm regards, Roger