Aristotle Smith wrote:It really isn't any different than the Salt Lake Monsonite LDS church deciding who gets to be called "Mormon."
There's all the difference in the world! The LDS Church is an organization; Christianity is a movement. Leaders of an organization can decide who is a member of the organization. But no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement. That job lies, somewhat imperfectly, with sociologists.
Aristotle Smith wrote:It really isn't any different than the Salt Lake Monsonite LDS church deciding who gets to be called "Mormon."
There's all the difference in the world! The LDS Church is an organization; Christianity is a movement. Leaders of an organization can decide who is a member of the organization. But no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement. That job lies, somewhat imperfectly, with sociologists.
Mormonism is a movment. The LDS church is an organization. But no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement.
lulu - imitatively
Last edited by Guest on Wed May 30, 2012 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
thews wrote:You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness.
Stuff it thews. Did I mention that some Anabaptists were polygamists?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
madeleine wrote:Mormons would like that work of art, once the wings were edited out. I wonder, does that fall under "removing plain and precious things"?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Aristotle Smith wrote:It really isn't any different than the Salt Lake Monsonite LDS church deciding who gets to be called "Mormon."
There's all the difference in the world! The LDS Church is an organization; Christianity is a movement. Leaders of an organization can decide who is a member of the organization. But no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement. That job lies, somewhat imperfectly, with sociologists.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the organization. Mormonism is the movemement.
The LDS Church definitely has the right to decide who can and who can't class themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the same way as Catholic leaders have the right to decide who can and who can't be classed as Catholic.
The LDS Church has NO right to decide who can and who can't class themselves as part of the Mormonism movement within which the Church is but one organization. Exactly the same as your statement that Catholics have no right decide who can and who can't class themselves as Christian.
To use your words "no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement."
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
madeleine wrote:Mormons would like that work of art, once the wings were edited out. I wonder, does that fall under "removing plain and precious things"?
LOL! This made my morning! It was decadently wicked. I love your sense of humor!
I think lulu is explaining why it is fallacious for any particular Christian group to presume that it gets to dictate what particular Christology or doctrine defines someone as a "Christian."
As has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, it is similarly fallacious for the LDS Church to presume it gets to decide who can and cannot self-identify as a Mormon.
I like how that just does a 180 on the LDS Church, and bites it in the butt.
sock puppet wrote: I think lulu is explaining why it is fallacious for any particular Christian group to presume that it gets to dictate what particular Christology or doctrine defines someone as a "Christian."
As has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, it is similarly fallacious for the LDS Church to presume it gets to decide who can and cannot self-identify as a Mormon.
I like how that just does a 180 on the LDS Church, and bites it in the butt.[/quote]
They never, ever seem to get that point.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Thews wrote:You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness. You are Simon Belmont, bcspace and ldsfaqs all rolled up into one. You spew lies about Christianity to benefit your own needs while selling the word of the real Jesus Christ to convince people you actually believe them, when you know the snake oil you're selling is a lie. I hope you meet the souls you convinced through your words to follow the false prophet in Joseph Smith. I hope they tell you how your words convinced them to believe the words of Joseph Smith were true, even though you knew they came from occult magical rocks and incorrectly translated words from the pagan book of the dead. You can spew your "inspired" lies to them face-to-face, but know this Liz... you know this now. What were your conclusions Liz... cat got your tongue? Smile empty soul...
So much for my sharing my conclusions shutting you up as you promised. And you continue to twist my words, which I won't even bother to acknowledge point by point. Everyone can read your venomous slur for themselves.
Face it. No one here takes you seriously, Thews. You are the joke.
Drifting wrote:Liz, this may come across as picky and for that I apologise
liz3564 wrote:I believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired work, and is a further testament to the living Christ. Whether this book is a literal history, or simply inspired writing, I really don't know, nor do I think it really matters in the grand scheme of things.
if the Book is not literally what it has been claimed to be by Joseph Smith and as attested to by all those witnesses then how can you believe it to be inspired at all? Did God inspire the writing of it but not the claimed origin?
If it is not literally what it is claimed to be then how can it be an authentic additional witness of Jesus Christ?
I just saw this. by the way, thank you for your civil tone. Thews could learn from you, if he chose to.
There are portions of the Bible which I question being literal as well (the global flood, Jonah and the whale, etc.), and yet, I find the work, overall, to be an inspirational work. I look at the Book of Mormon the same way. If someone is going to go to great lengths to send a message that Christ is the savior of all mankind, then I believe it to be an inspired work.
I wonder, does that fall under "removing plain and precious things"?
