Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_stemelbow]

Wrong. You were the one who made things personal with your repeated attempts to accuse me of arguing with an agenda against Mormons

I didn't accuse you of this. I did notice you went off, off-topic mind you, to complain about Mormons and I made note of that. Oh brother. You did go on and on about Mormons. You complained about me as a person, rather than sticking to the topic for some reason. I'm sure you won't see it otherwise, and perhaps most of your buddies here will agree with you, but that simply is not true.

and intentionally trying to confuse an otherwise simple matter.

I said nothing of "intentionally" trying to confuse. I just said your arguments are confusing a simple matter. Whether you realize it, or not is not my point. I don't care if your muddying the waters rings in the ears of others or not. I simply don't buy it. And I mean no offense there.

And your "I know you are, but what am I?" response to my comparison of your posting style with the folks from CARM is even sadder.

Well then pout away. I can't help that you are the one who in the midst of discussing the rather mundane topic of whether Mormonism is Christian went off about Mormons this and Mormons that. I can't help you keep accusing me of things I did not do, thus attempting to change the discussion from the stated topic, to me. That is clearly CARM behavior. I probably wouldn't have called you on it, if you weren't intent on making this all personal and attempted to put me down. Its your game. My goodness.

[quote-"stemelbow"]For my part, I’m sorry if I offended in anyway[/quote]

Well, you've got the non-apology apology down, that's for sure.

Oh my goodness. This is just silliness, for sure. And for that, I'll probably offend, but it really is. What happened to the grown up thing of taking apologies and moving on?

and I hope we can move forward without any harsh feelings, perhaps even engaging on another topic at some point

Certainly. Next time I feel like engaging someone who clearly lacks the intellectual dexterity to understand anything more complex than "Mormons good! Yay Mormons!" and am in need of someone to make wild paranoid accusations of me all the while intentionally misrepresenting my arguments, you'll be first on my list.

Great. "wild paranoid accusations" of you? What in the world? This is almost unbelievable. You accused me, MsJack. I didn't accuse you--although I admit I was quite confused by your argument--which I'd say is as much your fault as mine, seeing as you offered conflicting statments.

[_beastie]

Hoops’ statements regarding the True freedom in Christ.

I do not believe a Christian who is a Mormon can be led astray and hence into hell. I do believe Mormonism does not teach Christian core principles and thus that person can not enjoy True freedom we have in Christ.

This statement makes clear that Hoops believes that Mormons can be Christian, but cannot enjoy True freedom in Christ due to false teachings.

So there is a difference between being saved, ie, Christian, and enjoy True freedom in Christ.

In response to my questions:
beastie

Just how much theology must one correctly grasped to be saved?

Hoops

At the low end... none.

Here again, Hoops shows it is possible to be a Christian, ie, be saved, and have no grasp of correct theology.

beastie

Just how much theology must one correctly grasped to have "true freedom" in Christ?

Hoops

That's a bit different. Others should probably chime in here, but I would say understanding who Jesus is, what He did, and what we are in Him is crucial

So one must have a correct theological understanding of Jesus in order to have True freedom in Christ.

Hoops

Theologically confused person X may not experience true freedom in Christ, that's correct. I'm not sure why you would find that so repulsive. And, yeah, person X gets into heaven and that's it. Is there something more? beyond experiencing that freedom? Why is this so bad?

So while Hoops denies that this equates different levels of salvation, it clearly equates different experiences of salvation in this life. Perhaps in the next life it all irons out. One experience of salvation is inferior to the other. The experience in which one does not have True freedom in Christ is inferior to the experience in which one does.

Now Hoops explains that Mormons don’t have True freedom in Christ.

That's correct. In a context that you know better than I, I rarely see or experience Mormons who enjoy that freedom. There is always something more to do, some ordinance, some "thing" that is required of them. And, they seem to be constantly fighting their guilt. That is not what God wants us to experience. This is just my experience, of course, but that's my perspective.

This clearly links the emphasis on works and rites to not having True freedom in Christ.

Yet I suspect that Catholics, in Hoops’ view, have no problem having True freedom in Christ.

And yet for Catholic believers, the seven sacraments are required. Isn’t that some “thing” that is required of them?

I asked:

Does someone who lacks theological understanding, but manages to get saved in spite of that ignorance, qualify for the indwelling of the Spirit? And isn't it that Spirit that gives peace and 'true freedom' of Christ?

Hoops:

Of course. But repentance involves an intellectual recognition. Human beings are funny lot. We feel guilt as an emotional response to a lot. I think if takes an intellectual recognition that we are forgiven, rather than an emotional one.

I will return to this comment.

I asked

So which theological concepts must one intellectually grasp before being able to have true freedom in Christ?

Hoops

I would start with the fact that by Christ our sins are forgiven, all of them, once and for all time. Yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's.

This comment clearly implies that no other steps are necessary to obtain forgiveness, even for future sins. And yet, in the Hoops’ previous comment “But repentance involves an intellectual recognition” seems to imply that there is a step – repentance. Or is Hoops saying it is not necessary to even REPENT of future sins, once one is saved? I don’t know what Hoops is saying, and have very little hope of Hoops clarifying to the point where I do, but what Hoops has said so far is confusing.

And if, indeed, future repentance is not even necessary once one is saved, well, then, it ought not be atheists who are accused of embracing a world view in which “everything” – ie, every bad action - is permissible. (of course, that’s a false accusation, anyway, but it’s a common one) It’s apparently Evangelical Christianity which provides the world view in which “everything” is permissible – because you’re already forgiven.
And this is why I said, on a previous post, that this type of Christian thinking is detrimental to some people who, perhaps, need more structure and impetus to “choosing the right.”

Hoops made one further comment that lends to my interpretation:

Um...no, you're mistaken AGAIN. I never said anything about "feeling" True Freedom. And to the extent that you are right (which is not at all) it's not me, Jesus seemed to have something to say about being free.

So the True freedom in Christ isn’t even a feeling. All the True freedom in Christ really is is knowing that no matter what sins you committed in the past, today, or in the future, you’re automatically forgiven.

I suppose “go thy way and sin no more” was merely a rhetorical device.

[Tator]

beastie

I'm asking you questions about your assertions. That is discussing things. by the way, you already accused me of lying, or being lazy, or deliberately obtuse.

Hoops

And provided evidence for it. And you, essentially, agreed.

LOL. You actually believed you provided evidence that I'm lazy, deliberately obtuse, or lying, and I agreed with that evidence?

Oh, my. That's one of the funniest things I've read on an internet interaction in a long time.

Let me assure you, Hoops, the reality you are experiencing is not the reality I am experiencing.

My reality says this: Hoops was hopelessly ambiguous in explaining, in a clear, forthright manner, Hoops' position on this thread, so I did the best I could to piece together Hoops' meaning from Hoops' statements. Hoops is now claiming I had it entirely wrong, so I will hope that Hoops will now clarify.


Does any part of you recognize, Hoops, how extraordinarily difficult it has been to get clear, forthright answers and explanations from you on this thread? You've yet to answer Jason's simple questions, for heaven's sake. It's like pulling teeth. I would never have spent the time I have with you on this thread were I not on break right now and frittering time away (largely procrastinating more important jobs, to be honest.)

[_MsJack]

You complained about me as a person, rather than sticking to the topic for some reason.

I can't help you keep accusing me of things I did not do, thus attempting to change the discussion from the stated topic, to me. That is clearly CARM behavior.

Oh my goodness. This is just silliness, for sure.

What in the world? This is almost unbelievable. You accused me, MsJack.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

I know that you wrote me a lengthy reply and I haven't responded to it. Its just...I *have* to get off this thread and away from the computer or I will procrastinate on other things I need to be doing.

I promise you, there was nothing in your post that I find offensive. I welcome hearing perspectives that differ from my own. I want to know what other people think and believe, and why. I want to know about their personal journey.

Like you don't know that about me already.

:-)

[_KimberlyAnn]

According to Joseph Smith himself, Mormonism came about precisely because the long-established Christian creeds, both Catholic and Protestant, were abominations.

Christian ministers were, for years, portrayed in a very unflattering light in Mormon temple ceremonies.

For the Mormon church to claim to be Christian alongside, say, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., is extremely disingenuous. I grew up being taught that Mormonism was exclusively true and the only religion whereby men could be saved. Why else baptize the dead of other faiths? Why else rebaptize converts who have been previously baptized in Christian churches? Mormonism rejects the Christianity of long-established Christian denominations, yet wants to claim the title right along with them? They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

I do not believe the Mormon church will ever be widely viewed as Christian by outsiders, for many reasons, not the least of which is the Mormon doctrine that Jesus is a created being, spiritually and physically, just like other men and women. That belief wouldn't pass muster with any Christian I know, of any denomination.

KA

[_stemelbow]

You complained about me as a person, rather than sticking to the topic for some reason.

I can't help you keep accusing me of things I did not do, thus attempting to change the discussion from the stated topic, to me. That is clearly CARM behavior.

Oh my goodness. This is just silliness, for sure.

What in the world? This is almost unbelievable. You accused me, MsJack.

lol, MsJack.

[_stemelbow]

According to Joseph Smith himself, Mormonism came about precisely because the long-established Christian creeds, both Catholic and Protestant, were abominations.

Christian ministers were, for years, portrayed in a very unflattering light in Mormon temple ceremonies.

For the Mormon church to claim to be Christian alongside, say, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., is extremely disingenuous. I grew up being taught that Mormonism was exclusively true and the only religion whereby men could be saved. Why else baptize the dead of other faiths? Why else rebaptize converts who have been previously baptized in Christian churches? Mormonism rejects the Christianity of long-established Christian denominations, yet wants to claim the title right along with them? They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

I do not believe the Mormon church will ever be widely viewed as Christian by outsiders, for many reasons, not the least of which is the Mormon doctrine that Jesus is a created being, spiritually and physically, just like other men and women. That belief wouldn't pass muster with any Christian I know, of any denomination.

KA

So are you saying "Christian" should be defined as something other than one who believes Jesus Christ is THE Savior, and accepts His teachings as true?

I don't want a rehash of earlier conversations, if we can avoid it, but I'd be interested in your take on that question. Additionally, if so, what would you define "Christian" as?

[_KimberlyAnn]

According to Joseph Smith himself, Mormonism came about precisely because the long-established Christian creeds, both Catholic and Protestant, were abominations.

Christian ministers were, for years, portrayed in a very unflattering light in Mormon temple ceremonies.

For the Mormon church to claim to be Christian alongside, say, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., is extremely disingenuous. I grew up being taught that Mormonism was exclusively true and the only religion whereby men could be saved. Why else baptize the dead of other faiths? Why else rebaptize converts who have been previously baptized in Christian churches? Mormonism rejects the Christianity of long-established Christian denominations, yet wants to claim the title right along with them? They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

I do not believe the Mormon church will ever be widely viewed as Christian by outsiders, for many reasons, not the least of which is the Mormon doctrine that Jesus is a created being, spiritually and physically, just like other men and women. That belief wouldn't pass muster with any Christian I know, of any denomination.

KA

So are you saying "Christian" should be defined as something other than one who believes Jesus Christ is THE Savior, and accepts His teachings as true?

I don't want a rehash of earlier conversations, if we can avoid it, but I'd be interested in your take on that question. Additionally, if so, what would you define "Christian" as?

What is the nature of Jesus? What are His teachings? The nature of the Jesus Mormons worship and the nature of the Jesus historical Christians worship is very, very different. Created vs. Uncreated. It's a gap that spans the universe, Stem. One worships a created man, a brother, who worked his way to Godhood. One worships a self-existent God. It's just not the same. Not at all.

I don't have time to go further into this today, but I will try to get back to it later.

Kimberly

[_stemelbow]

What is the nature of Jesus? What are His teachings? The nature of the Jesus Mormons worship and the nature of the Jesus historical Christians worship is very, very different. Created vs. Uncreated. It's a gap that cannot be breached. One worships a created man, a brother, who worked his way to Godhood. One worships a self-existent God. Stem, it's just not the same. Not at all.

I don't have time to go further into this today, but I will try to get back to it later.

Kimberly

I hope when you do get back to it, you answer my questions. Peace to you.