Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Roger Morrison]

Marg, interesting how we can read the same thing, and arrive at different conclusions... I 'think' Jersey Girl, by 'bolding' an edit was saying something like, "I" am not saying, "...we need a savior..." BUT that traditional Christianity says, "...we still need a savior." Possible??

Well Roger, does traditional Christianity leave out a "fall" when it argues the purpose of "Jesus dying to save mankind". Because J.G left it out, and I'm not aware of Christianity assuming God created an imperfect man from the get go which needed saving, I assume that is J.G.'s personal spin. It really doesn't make much difference whether J.G. is arguuing her beliefs, or speaking for other's beliefs, in either case the argument or justification of Jesus dying to save mankind is extremely weak as to be completely nonsensical. In short her conclusion doesn't follow with adequate justification from the premises.

Marg, no, traditional Christianity is built upon the "Fall". Adam's transgression and expulsion from Eden into the "cold, cruel world" to sweat his existance along with Eve who, for her disobedience will--as will every following mother--bear her children in pain. SO THE Bible SAYS. AND CHRISTIANS 'HAVE' TAUGHT. (Will they continue to do so without modification? Depends upon the Sect. I think.)

As well, the expulsion from the Garden, where Adam & Eve (supposedly) walked & talked with God, ejected them from God's presence and is refered to as their/humanity's 'spiritual-death'. To return to God's presence (according to the story, everyone's burning desire) a price/sacrifice had to be paid. (Nothing for nothing.) According to Jewish tradition, a slaughtered, and sacrificed, un-spotted lamb (purchased from the Priestly-monopoly) restored one's status with God.

Following that tradition, Jesus is seen as "the Lamb-of-God" whose blood pays for the "Fall-of-man" and makes possible man's return to the presence of God, and Jesus Christ their redeemer.

In sectarian Christianism there are several (many?) interpretations of this story, running from an all-inclusive salvation to an exclusive one only enjoyed by those who continually profess their testimony of Jesus paying for their sins with his blood. Mormons,OTOH, have nicely compromised this with "...EVERYONE is "saved", but only "worthy Mormons are Exalted to be with God". Not all Mormons will be deemed "worthy"; only obedient Mormons who profess their belief in Joseph Smith, the "Restoration", and the "current Prophet", in a Temple Recommend Interview, will enter the Celestial Kingdom--by their earthly performance of Temple rites--(cultic?) and be with God, and their families. IF the family members are also worthy Mormons.

I stand to be corrected in any of the above. But, i think that's a generally accurate (oximoron?) thumbnail of Christianity and Mormonism, as to their teaching of the Fall, Redemption and Immortality. I think too, it makes clear the Mormon cause of rescuing the world from an insipid and incomplete Christianity--as Mormonism teaches: Only one church is led by a Prophet of God, theirs. Only one church has God's authority, theirs.

Marg, I hope that answers your questions?? Warm regards, Roger

[Guest]

I think Jesus saw himself fullfilling that role in order to be the representative new Jew which fullfills that role. He sufffers to give forgiveness and make forgiveness shared between people the foundation for the future of humans.

I fail to see the logical connect between Jesus dying and forgiveness.

Well Roger, does traditional Christianity leave out a "fall" when it argues the purpose of "Jesus dying to save mankind".

Marg, no, traditional Christianity is built upon the "Fall". Adam's transgression and expulsion from Eden into the "cold, cruel world" to sweat his existance along with Eve who, for her disobedience will--as will every following mother--bear her children in pain. SO THE Bible SAYS. AND CHRISTIANS 'HAVE' TAUGHT. (Will they continue to do so without modification? Depends upon the Sect. I think.)

As well, the expulsion from the Garden, where Adam & Eve (supposedly) walked & talked with God, ejected them from God's presence and is refered to as their/humanity's 'spiritual-death'. To return to God's presence (according to the story, everyone's burning desire) a price/sacrifice had to be paid. (Nothing for nothing.) According to Jewish tradition, a slaughtered, and sacrificed, un-spotted lamb (purchased from the Priestly-monopoly) restored one's status with God.

Following that tradition, Jesus is seen as "the Lamb-of-God" whose blood pays for the "Fall-of-man" and makes possible man's return to the presence of God, and Jesus Christ their redeemer.

I'm reluctant to interject myself back into this discussion, but I had some thoughts on this that I wanted to add to the whole "Fall-Redemption" question, particularly those questions posed by marg on the last page or two, and responses by Jersey Girl and Roger Morrison.

I'd like to suggest an alternative theory regarding the concept of the atonement/redemption of mankind.

Is it possible to embrace a concept that the atonement wasn't necessary to physically satisfy a demand of universal law, but that it could have been emotionally necessary to convince mankind of the concept of universal love and ransom?

That is to say, traditionally, Christians have taught that mankind's depravity (tied either literally or allegorically to "the Fall") resulted in the need for a sacrificial offering. (The Fall was not a concept unique to Christianity, but an extension of Jewish belief brought into Christianity.) This was prefigured throughout the Old Testament. People argue pro and con regarding this generally with the assumption that Christians assert that the ransom was necessary to satisfy God, or universal law. (And this all gets wrapped up in the confusion of whether it was God himself who came down and sacrificed himself, or that God sacrificed his son, or that both are true, but the differences are semantic.)

But what if it wasn't? What if it wasn't actually physically necessary at all?

What if, assuming the existence of deity, the primary purpose of an atoning sacrifice was simply to show the extent of God's love? And what if all tendencies for Christian thought to hang onto the need for a literal ultimate sacrifice is really just looking through a glass darkly?

I'd submit that there are many Christians who can see the Fall of Adam as allegorical, and not literal (in the sense that they don't necessarily believe there were specific people named "Adam" and "Eve" anyway), but can look to a general sense of human depravity and separation from God needing to be remedied. Those same people, yes, will view the life and death (if not the resurrection) of Jesus Christ as quite literal, primarily because Christianity itself erupted out of a segment of Judaism because of a cult of personality around an individual and the claim that he had physically resurrected. Most Christian traditions trace back to early apostolic claims one way or another, just as Mormonism traces back to early stories of Joseph Smith (though no doubt at some point two thousand years hence it's possible any history or existence of Joseph Smith or his followers could likewise be called into question).

None of us were around two thousand years ago, so we rely on the accounts of others to inform our views. Whether we choose to believe Jesus ben Joseph was a historical figure or not, a religious leader or not, a deity or not, I'm simply suggesting that it's possible that Christians can adhere to a view of the Fall that's more allegorical and literal and still believe that the resurrection and the atonement were real, but not necessarily physically requirements to satisfy the demands of mankind's depravity, and with no ultimate consequence eternally other than to provide evidence of God's love.

It seems to me that while this notion might be frustrating to those who hold traditional views, even to the non-believer it can be palatable.

Just some thoughts, and an alternative prospect, for what it's worth.

[_marg]

I'm somewhat confused with your answer, as you start out as if you are disagreeing with me.

Marg, no, traditional Christianity is built upon the "Fall".

My understanding is that traditional Christianity is built upon the "Fall" and ever since man is born with original sin which stems from Adam and Eve's transgressions. But the "fall" in traditional Christianity is what places the responsibility of poor behavior/disobedience on man, and the reason why God expects man to make a sacrifice to him. J.G.'s argument leaves a "fall" out of her argument with the seeming reason that she wishes to treat the Adam and Eve story as allegory even to the point that no "fall" is necessary. But if there is no "fall" which is explained by the Adam and Eve story, then there is no reason to punish mankind and Jesus doesn't need to be sacrificed. So her argument doesn't jive with traditional Christianity but more than that, she concludes with "we need a savior" but doesn't offer adequate premises even within the context/paradigm of Christianty to support that conclusion.

Now are there any Christian groups today, which don't propose that Jesus needed to be sacrificed to God in order to save mankind..all (inclusive) or a partial/few (exclusive)?

[_the road to hana]

But the "fall" in traditional Christianity is what places the responsibility of poor behavior/disobedience on man, and the reason why God expects man to make a sacrifice to him.

Not exactly. My own understanding of traditional Christian theology is not that God expects man to make the sacrifice, but that God makes it himself on behalf of mankind. There's a difference, with a distinction.

Now are there any Christian groups today, which don't propose that Jesus needed to be sacrificed to God in order to save mankind..all (inclusive) or a partial/few (exclusive)?

I don't believe any of them assert that Jesus needed to be sacrificed "to God." The view is that Jesus, as God, or the Son of God, sacrificed himself for and on behalf of mankind.

Anyway, see my remarks above.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Goodk,

this issue could go in the Terrestrial if you'd like it to be there (more readers).

As to Christianity vs Mormonism, the Bible has some archaeological evidence, suggesting that the events could have happened (as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where the evidence is totally absent). That being said, it's still a leap of faith, but I think the Christians have more to stand on than the Mormons.

*shrugs*

Right. Mormonism can't even get off the ground.

What gets Christianity off the ground? Besides the theory that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. That has been stated ad naseum...

What gets Christianity off the ground in my mind is that we know places mentioned in the Bible (such as Jerusalem, Egypt, etc) existed. I mean the fact that Jerusalem exists provides the smallest sliver of a possibility that Jesus's life happened. Now it doesn't mean you're going to make the leap of faith to their is a God, metaphysical saviors, and so forth.

But the possibility that a man named Jesus (or whatever his Hebrew name was...can't remember the possibilities) lived and might have done stuff (even if it was just a little social uproaring over whatever) can be looked at. Now I'm not saying that their is a God or supernatural forces or whatever, but I think you can at least say that some of the background material exists.

Think of it this way...we know the Romans ruled Palestine and Jerusalem for a time. Say that a fictional story was going to be set during that time period, is that fictional story (Jesus and the gang) any different than a fictional story set during the American Civil War (other than the supernatural elements).

Dang...I'm getting all mixed up :). The point I'm trying to make is that Mormonism doesn't really have any of those "bones" of archaeological background that say the Bible does. The Book of Mormon talks a big game, but they really can't put forth any evidence (cities for example) like Biblical scholars can (Jerusalem, Rome, etc).

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Marg is here???

Where?

Pirate ;)

Edited to say, Oh I see. Do I know you marg? Maybe I should PM you.

[_GoodK]

Goodk,

this issue could go in the Terrestrial if you'd like it to be there (more readers).

As to Christianity vs Mormonism, the Bible has some archaeological evidence, suggesting that the events could have happened (as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where the evidence is totally absent). That being said, it's still a leap of faith, but I think the Christians have more to stand on than the Mormons.

*shrugs*

Right. Mormonism can't even get off the ground.

What gets Christianity off the ground? Besides the theory that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. That has been stated ad naseum...

What gets Christianity off the ground in my mind is that we know places mentioned in the Bible (such as Jerusalem, Egypt, etc) existed. I mean the fact that Jerusalem exists provides the smallest sliver of a possibility that Jesus's life happened. Now it doesn't mean you're going to make the leap of faith to their is a God, metaphysical saviors, and so forth.

But the possibility that a man named Jesus (or whatever his Hebrew name was...can't remember the possibilities) lived and might have done stuff (even if it was just a little social uproaring over whatever) can be looked at. Now I'm not saying that their is a God or supernatural forces or whatever, but I think you can at least say that some of the background material exists.

Think of it this way...we know the Romans ruled Palestine and Jerusalem for a time. Say that a fictional story was going to be set during that time period, is that fictional story (Jesus and the gang) any different than a fictional story set during the American Civil War (other than the supernatural elements).

Dang...I'm getting all mixed up :). The point I'm trying to make is that Mormonism doesn't really have any of those "bones" of archaeological background that say the Bible does. The Book of Mormon talks a big game, but they really can't put forth any evidence (cities for example) like Biblical scholars can (Jerusalem, Rome, etc).

Would you say the Bible is on the same level as the Koran in that respect? Or more? Or not sure? :)

[_marg]

I don't believe any of them assert that Jesus needed to be sacrificed "to God." The view is that Jesus, as God, or the Son of God, sacrificed himself for and on behalf of mankind.

So then you do not agree with J.G's argument to conclusion "we (all of mankind) need a savior"

But the "fall" in traditional Christianity is what places the responsibility of poor behavior/disobedience on man, and the reason why God expects man to make a sacrifice to him.

Not exactly. My own understanding of traditional Christian theology is not that God expects man to make the sacrifice, but that God makes it himself on behalf of mankind. There's a difference, with a distinction.

Ok so man is born imperfect by the mere fact he has the potential to be disobedient to a "universal law" (your words) of (I assume) treating others well. The fact that all men have this potential of mistreating others, not that they act on it means that some sort of sacrifice to God needs to be made, before God is willing to accept mankind in the afterlife and allow them to be with him. So he decides the sacrifice to be made and chooses that he himself will be killed, thereby depriving mankind of any further benefits in the form of teachings from himself/Jesus. And according to you, (I believe) an actual physical act of Jesus dying is not necessary for Christianity to convey important concepts. The atonement could be treated allegorically, and the lesson learned from the atonement storyline would be the "concept of universal love and ransom" (your words).

First off let me just say that as a non religious individual, I don't find any of the above reasonable. It is not "palatable" to me. But to your last sentence...I do not see how "universal love" can be learned as a concept from the story of the atonement. If that is argued as the purpose of the story, which you presented in your previous post I believe, it certainly isn't obvious or transparently clear to me. And in fact the atonement rather than being associated with "love" in my opinion as far greater association with "hatred" conceptually, as the storyline puts Jews in the bad guy role of being responsible for Jesus' death. If the storyline was of God striking Jesus dead, then God is responsible and no one else. Now if the storyline had God forgoing a sacrifice to him that might show some love on God's part. Also a storyline which doesn't involve unnecessary killing at the very least might show some love, but nothing in the atonement that I can see conveys a moral value of displaying "love" to or of others. It seems to me that in order to find "love" in the atonement storyline, it requires convoluted and warped thinking, of the sort I try not to waste too much time with in my life.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Would you say the Bible is on the same level as the Koran in that respect? Or more? Or not sure? :)

Not sure (I'm not that familiar with the Koran).

[_the road to hana]

I don't believe any of them assert that Jesus needed to be sacrificed "to God." The view is that Jesus, as God, or the Son of God, sacrificed himself for and on behalf of mankind.

So then you do not agree with J.G's argument to conclusion "we (all of mankind) need a savior"

Sorry, marg, but your response reinforces why I was reluctant to reinsert myself into this discussion. First, it leads people to assume I'm interjecting my own personal beliefs into it (rather than philosophizing, speculating, or trying to have an interesting theoretical theological discussion), and second, it's almost impossible to articulate these thoughts without being grossly misunderstood. Unfortunately, you got most of what I just tried to articulate above completely upside down, but I'll try again to sort it out.

First, regarding Jersey Girl's explanation, above, I understand, I think, what she is trying to suggest, and if I'm not mistaken, on some points she and I are suggesting the same thing. (That is not to suggest that she and I agree on all points or espouse the same personal beliefs.)

She's saying (I think) that whether or not the Fall, or Adam and Eve, were literal events, that the depravity of mankind (which can also be stated as man's separation from God) necessitates "a savior" (in the sense that human longing, at least, required it, if not universal law or God's judgment).

But I'm not sure how my statement quoted at the top of this post relates directly to Jersey Girl's assertion. My point was that it's a mistake to interpret the sacrifice as taking place "to God." Jesus (and I'm speaking hypothetically here and for the sake of argument assuming historicity of the crucifixion), if he was sacrificed, was not sacrificed "to God." Christians believe he was God, come down to earth as a man, to live among men, and be tempted and suffer like men, descending below it all, as it were, to show that he was willing to take on the suffering and sins of all mankind. Now, here's where people get confused talking about this point. If Jesus was God, does that mean he was God the Father? No. Most Christians don't take the view that Jesus was God the Father come down to earth made man. He was the second person of the Godhead, who was always God in the sense of being part of the Godhead or trinity, come down to earth. Christians believe he was yes, God's son, but also God himself (but not God the Father). It wasn't God killing his son for blood sport. It wasn't God saying, "Someone better offer a sacrifice--who'll volunteer?" (Mormons tend to believe this, but they depart from traditional Christianity on this point.)

So, you have to get past the point of saying that a sacrifice was demanded to God. I'm arguing against that presumption, and suggesting that traditional Christianity does not embrace that point of view.



I'll move on to the other part of your response. Unfortunately, I'm afraid all my own comments on it will do is further confuse you, and illustrate just how completely you misunderstood what I suggested above.

But the "fall" in traditional Christianity is what places the responsibility of poor behavior/disobedience on man, and the reason why God expects man to make a sacrifice to him.

Not exactly. My own understanding of traditional Christian theology is not that God expects man to make the sacrifice, but that God makes it himself on behalf of mankind. There's a difference, with a distinction.

Ok so man is born imperfect by the mere fact he has the potential to be disobedient to a "universal law" (your words)

No. I'm not suggesting anything about either disobedience or compliance with a universal law.

of (I assume) treating others well.

No.

The fact that all men have this potential of mistreating others, not that they act on it means that some sort of sacrifice to God needs to be made,

No. I'm suggesting that it's possible that nothing demands a sacrifice.

before God is willing to accept mankind in the afterlife and allow them to be with him.

No. I'm suggesting that this is completely removed from the equation, and that the "atonement" is not relevant to any eternal consequence, other than humankind possibly being persuaded of the concept of ultimate love.

So he decides the sacrifice to be made and chooses that he himself will be killed,

No, no, no. You're confusing what most people perceive to be God the Father with what most people perceive to be God the Son, whom they believe came to earth as Jesus Christ. I'm saying there was no demand for sacrifice.

thereby depriving mankind of any further benefits in the form of teachings from himself/Jesus.

No. I'm having a difficult time theologically distinguishing for you the difference between "God the Father" and "God the Son." (It seems a peripheral argument to pursue whether someone's impact would be greater if they lived longer. We could wonder if the same cult of personality would arise around people like Princess Diana or John F. Kennedy had they lived longer, and even whether Joseph Smith would be revered in the same way he is today had he lived to a natural old age.)

And according to you, (I believe) an actual physical act of Jesus dying is not necessary for Christianity to convey important concepts.

No. Again, this is a misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of what I suggested. What I suggested was that an atonement might not have been necessary to fulfill a physical demand, or satisfy a law of the universe, or even a "greedy God," and that it might only have been necessary in the sense that people perceived they needed to be ransomed, and were persuaded of sacrificial love. I'm clearly not articulating that point well enough for you to understand.

The atonement could be treated allegorically, and the lesson learned from the atonement storyline would be the "concept of universal love and ransom" (your words).

No. No, the atonement itself would be quite real, in that the crucifixion and resurrection were literal events. What would be allegorical would be the reasons for the atonement, the supposed Fall of Adam, and the rationalization of the need for it.

First off let me just say that as a non religious individual, I don't find any of the above reasonable.

I don't know that it's worth pursuing whether or not something I did not assert is reasonable. So I'll pass to the next point.

It is not "palatable" to me.

I'm hopeful that someone else will actually read my post above and "get it." The type of non-believer I expect it to generically be palatable to is someone like Roger, if he reads the words and understands what I'm suggesting. What I meant by "palatable" is that unconditional love is something that is palatable to both believer and non-believer alike. Parents don't have to be rooted in any Judeo-Christian beliefs to believe that if they demonstrate unconditional love for their children, that's a good thing. Unbelievers tend to subscribe to the same.

But to your last sentence...I do not see how "universal love" can be learned as a concept from the story of the atonement. If that is argued as the purpose of the story, which you presented in your previous post I believe, it certainly isn't obvious or transparently clear to me.

Apparently, because you completely got my assertions upside down.

And in fact the atonement rather than being associated with "love" in my opinion as far greater association with "hatred" conceptually, as the storyline puts Jews in the bad guy role of being responsible for Jesus' death.

It's an interesting theoretical question to wonder if the an atoning sacrifice would have more impact if the person who was the object of the sacrifice were, say, killed in battle, or in a car accident, of disease, or died in their sleep.

If the storyline was of God striking Jesus dead, then God is responsible and no one else.

I'm unaware of any Christian tradition that holds that God "struck Jesus dead."

Now if the storyline had God forgoing a sacrifice to him that might show some love on God's part. Also a storyline which doesn't involve unnecessary killing at the very least might show some love, but nothing in the atonement that I can see conveys a moral value of displaying "love" to or of others. It seems to me that in order to find "love" in the atonement storyline, it requires convoluted and warped thinking, of the sort I try not to waste too much time with in my life.

And I fear that trying to explain again what I suggested above to you would waste not only your time, but mine.

It wasn't particularly important that you understand it. I was just throwing out a theological theory for the sake of discussion, but I can't defend what I didn't assert. And I certainly would prefer not to. Hopefully, someone else will read my post above on this page and get some sense of what I'm trying to convey. But if not, it isn't earth shattering.