scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (01/30/85)
This is a clarification of my earlier book recommendation followed by a short flame. "The Mormon Papers", by H. Ropp, published by IVP. This book is divided into three major sections: - Are Mormons Christians? - Are the Mormon scriptures reliable? - What are the barriers to Mormons becoming Christians? The first section of the book discusses and contrasts Mormon and Christian beliefs on various subjects. A few examples: Mormons believe that God was once a man, but did enough good works to earn becoming a god. Further, they believe that any good Mormon male may one day become a god, too. They also believe that God has a physical body just like anybody else. Christians believe in one God in three Persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that there is no god other than the one God. Mormons believe that salvation is earned by the things that you do (salvation by works). Christians believe that salvation is a free gift and was accomplished once and for all by Jesus' death on the cross. The works are a result of faith. (If you don't understand what I just wrote, at least recognize that it's not the same thing at what Mormons believe). Mormons believe that only Mormons are 'true Christians', and that *everybody* else is apostate (look it up). Christians of many different backgrounds accept the basic validity of each other's faith and doctrine. ---- The point is, that Mr. Ropp does a good job of pointing out the differences between the two faiths. Mormons aren't Christians because the things that they believe are fundamentally different and incompatible with many things that *every* major (and most minor, for that matter) Christian denomination accepts and believes. The book is written like any other piece of scholarly research. When he quotes something, he tells you where from. Now for a short flame. WHY, WHY, WHY, when I post a nicely worded book recommendation, do I get called a looney, hypocrite, bigot, etc.???? Huh??? There are probably a lot of very nice Mormons and they may well have a very nice religion. But it's not a Christian religion. Did I jump up and down on Mormons? No. Did I get jumped up and down on? You betcha. NOW I remember why I never used to like posting things. It's because all the normal rules of showing respect to the person you're talking to don't apply on the net. Note to the person who wondered if I could find Regenstein (the campus graduate library): Given that I'm an Asst. Professor in the Graduate Library School, and that this note was written from my office in Regenstein, I don't imagine that I'll have a lot of trouble. S * I * G * H ...... Scott Deerwester University of Chicago Graduate Library School
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/31/85)
Apologies to all those bored of this discussion. I had intended to stop, but couldn't pass this one up: In article <319@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP writes: > >Mormons believe that God was once a man, but did enough good >works to earn becoming a god. Further, they believe that any >good Mormon male may one day become a god, too. They also >believe that God has a physical body just like anybody else. Correct, except that they also believe females become gods too. >Christians believe in one God in three Persons; the Father, >the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that there is no god other >than the one God. SOME Christians believe in such a God, others don't. You don't have the right to decide who is and isn't a Christian. Maybe you should have said "orthodox Christians". >Mormons believe that salvation is earned by the things that >you do (salvation by works). Almost correct, Mormons believe that salvation is a result of adherence to certain moral principles. Earned isn't the right word. >Mormons believe that only Mormons are 'true Christians', and that >*everybody* else is apostate (look it up). Yes, there are lot of Mormons just as narrow-minded as you appear to be (oh, excuse me, I flamed). Their official policy, I believe has been not to make attacks on other religions, and confine their proselyting activities to presenting their positive features, which I consider a more respectable practice. >WHY, WHY, WHY, when I post a nicely worded book recommendation, >do I get called a looney, hypocrite, bigot, etc.???? Huh??? I didn't call you a loony, I was referring to the authors of the "cult" books. I didn't use the word bigot or hypocrite, but I do think those shoes also fit the books you mentioned very well. In another posting I explained why I think this sort of thing is contemptible. >NOW I remember why I never used to like >posting things. It's because all the normal rules of showing >respect to the person you're talking to don't apply on the net. Well, tact is not one of my faults. I think that if someone makes a racial or religious attack they are fair game for verbal reprisal. Those who know me personally will affirm that if you had made the statements you made orally in my presence you would have found yourself verbally set upon. Hey, this is net.flame. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. >Note to the person who wondered if I could find Regenstein >(the campus graduate library): > >Given that I'm an Asst. Professor in the Graduate >Library School, and that this note was written from >my office in Regenstein, I don't imagine that I'll >have a lot of trouble. That was sarcasm, and it looks like it went over your head! The point was, here you sat surrounded by one of the best scholarly collections on Mormons in the country and where do you go to find out about them---a "Christian" book store. There is a reason that books of that ilk are only found in special bookstores---they aren't considered reputable by most scholars. I am sorry if I personally hurt you. But I feel your arguments are unjustified and, yes, a little bigoted.
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/02/85)
In article <319@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) writes: >"The Mormon Papers", by H. Ropp, published by IVP. > >Mormons believe that salvation is earned by the things that >you do (salvation by works). > >Christians believe that salvation is a free gift and was >accomplished once and for all by Jesus' death on the cross. >The works are a result of faith. (If you don't understand what >I just wrote, at least recognize that it's not the same thing >at what Mormons believe). This is hardly correct. Historically there have been great differences of opinion among various Christian beliefs as to whether good works were necessary or sufficient for salvation. Catholicism, for example, has made people saints for their good works alone, because their works made them holy. And to accept Jesus as faith is not sufficient; one must confess ones sins, do proper penance for them (these sometimes also take to form of good works), and generally act in a Christian fashion. The question of "good works" is not settled in the universal fashion H. Ropp indicates; there is a complete range of belief. If H. Ropp can't even get his description of Christianity right, why should I care about his analysis "showing" Mormons aren't Christian? >Mormons believe that only Mormons are 'true Christians', and that >*everybody* else is apostate (look it up). > >Christians of many different backgrounds accept the basic validity >of each other's faith and doctrine. Yeah? Christians may accept "each other's faith and doctrine", but first they have to exclude people they think aren't Christian, and then this becomes a tautology: I accept as Christian the beliefs of people I accept as Christian. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/05/85)
For the record, Mormon's believe everyone will make it to heaven. Indeed, there is no hell. But, my friends, there are three sections to the afterlife. These sections will be reached only after the second coming of Christ, at which time the judgement will take place. Up until that time. we all will have been in a type of limbo, segregated into the believers, i.e. Mormons, and the unbelievers, who can reach the side of the believers through baptism of the dead. After the judgment, one's "hell", will be in knowing that one could have been closer to God. The quest then for Mormon's is not to receive salvation, but to get closer to God through works. Herein lies my quarrel with Mormon's being called Christian, which means a follower of Christ. You see, Jesus said, "No one comes to the father, except through me." To me, that precludes a graduated system of closeness to God. Again, one can quote scripture verses all day, but, in the end, faith is the thing I rely upon.
wmk@ptsfa.UUCP (Bill Klein) (02/06/85)
In article <319@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> you write: > >Christians believe in one God in three Persons; the Father, >the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that there is no god other >than the one God. > This is an excellent definition of "Trinitarians" not of Christians. For much of the history of Christianity, the nature of the Trinity has been debated. Most, but not all Christian denominations believe in it. On the other hand to say that the definition of a Christian denomination is one that believes in the Trinity only says you are really defining Trinitarian denominations. >Christians believe that salvation is a free gift and was >accomplished once and for all by Jesus' death on the cross. >The works are a result of faith. (If you don't understand what >I just wrote, at least recognize that it's not the same thing >at what Mormons believe). Have you ever read anything about the Reformation? I believe the number of current Christian denominations that accept at least the VALUE of good works if not the requirements for good works probably equals the number who do not. >Mormons believe that only Mormons are 'true Christians', and that >*everybody* else is apostate (look it up). > >Christians of many different backgrounds accept the basic validity >of each other's faith and doctrine. To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist Presbyterian and a variety of other "churches" ALL state in their official doctrine that they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. (They either excommunicate or damn each other.) I appreciate that many are moving toward reconciliation but what are they move from? In conclusion, I have not studied the Mormon doctrine well enough to know if I would "label" them as Christian. However, I believe there are only two valid questions: 1. Do they label themselves as Christian? 2. Does God label them as Christian? I don't personally have the answer to either question! Bill Klein (...!ucbvax!dual!ptsfa!wmk) Pacific Bell
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/07/85)
In article <432@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes: >Quoting article <319@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> (Scott Deerwester): >>"The Mormon Papers", by H. Ropp, published by IVP. >> >>Mormons believe that salvation is earned by the things that >>you do (salvation by works). >> >>Christians believe that salvation is a free gift and was >>accomplished once and for all by Jesus' death on the cross. >>The works are a result of faith. (If you don't understand what >>I just wrote, at least recognize that it's not the same thing >>at what Mormons believe). > >This is hardly correct. Historically there have been great differences >of opinion among various Christian beliefs as to whether good works were >necessary or sufficient for salvation. Catholicism, for example, has >made people saints for their good works alone, because their works made >them holy. And to accept Jesus as faith is not sufficient; one must >confess ones sins, do proper penance for them (these sometimes also take >to form of good works), and generally act in a Christian fashion. The >question of "good works" is not settled in the universal fashion H. Ropp >indicates; there is a complete range of belief. Uhhhhhhh.... While I agree that there have been differences of belief, and that doctrines of Trinity, f'rinstance, have been points of dissension, I have to point out here that when major deviations from the teachings about salvation and justification occur, they usually occur because of ignorance of the New Testament writings, or because of revisionism (Gee, I don't like this particular bit of theology, so I will claim that Paul, or Peter, or John, was actually lying/misinterpreted here, and...) I am not a Catholic nor do I claim to be a Catholic theologian. However, from my Hist Christianity class, I recall the description of what the rules for canonization were, as established by one of the Vatican councils (number 2, I think) and these were a) the saint is a very historical one, even though there may be no real proof that there WAS such a person, b) a martyr for the faith, regardless of good works, c) a person who was a member of the church, who demonstrated through their life of good works that they had faith, and after whose death, it could be shown that there were at least three documented miracles attributable to the intercession of that saint. That is, I believe, THE set of requirements. Bernard of Clairveaux was decanonized because his membership in the church was rendered doubtful. Christopher was decanonized because there was not enough evidence about his "miracles" to fit documentation requirements. For SALVATION, in fact, even in the Catholic church, which during the Dark Ages developed some ODD traditions due to the ignorance of most of the priests, FAITH IN JESUS AS SAVIOR is sufficient for salvation. However, there MAY be purgatory to serve for unconfessed or unrepented sins. Works are EXPECTED, as a sign that a person has faith, but they DO teach (according to my discussions with practicing Catholics) that they are not of themselves sufficient for salvation, and that good works without faith ought to shame those who have faith but do not engage in good works. The doctrine of purgatory is not biblical in origin, and has been questioned by a number of Catholic scholars. >Yeah? Christians may accept "each other's faith and doctrine", but first >they have to exclude people they think aren't Christian, and then this >becomes a tautology: I accept as Christian the beliefs of people I accept >as Christian. >-- > > Ken Arnold No tautology. We have a written handbook from which we derive our doctrine, as you have complained before. Since we can constantly perform checksums against that handbook, we can tell if what is held by one person is the same or significantly dissimilar to what is held by another. Sure, we go eventually to the point of accepting what someone taught us, and we can look to see that what they taught corresponds to what we KNOW was taught by the founder of our religion. We can say that the Mormons do not seem to teach the same faith because we can examine their teachings against the documented teachings of our faith. We can determine that they have several hundred points of deviation from our teaching. We can therefore say that they do not teach Christian doctrine, AND THEY MAKE THE SAME DISTINCTION. The Mormon church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" This indicates that THEY hold a schism to have occurred. They claim that they have the original, REAL word of God, and that the rest of us are mistaken and have false doctrines taught by Paul and others introduced later by the council at Nicea. We claim that they have (at best) not-too-clever imitations of scripture, given to them by a pair of con men. The fundamental question of "are Mormons saved by their faith in Jesus" is not really one I can answer; I am not Jesus and I do not presume to speak for Him in this case. I HOPE they are saved. I still think that most of their doctrines are false.
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/09/85)
>> = me > = Stephen Hutchison > >Uhhhhhhh.... While I agree that there have been differences of belief, and >that doctrines of Trinity, f'rinstance, have been points of dissension, >I have to point out here that when major deviations from the teachings about >salvation and justification occur, they usually occur because of ignorance >of the New Testament writings, or because of revisionism (Gee, I don't like >this particular bit of theology, so I will claim that Paul, or Peter, or John, >was actually lying/misinterpreted here, and...) > > [ Some corrections to my example of "good works" vis-a-vis Catholic > sainthood ] The first paragraph claims that the problem has been "ignorance" and "revisionism". I will not be the first person to point out that the recorded statments of Jesus and the apostles are subject to wide interpretation, even if they are read in the original Greek. One preson's "revisionism" is another person's truth. For example, the discussion going on about whether premarital sex is proscripted, or as strongly proscripted as adultery, shows that there can be several linguistically valid interpretations of the same phrase. The concept of Trinity is not Biblical. It was added to Catholicism later, was the cause of a great schism within the early church. Another great unsolvable is whether God and Jesus are one, or whether Jesus, being the Son, was created later and is the servant of the Father. There is NO clear cut discussion of these important theological points in the Bible. So who is right depends not on a judgement of "ignorance" or "revisionism", but on discussion and argument and personal belief. I, also, am not Catholic, so I am quite willing to believe that I made some subtle but theologically crucial point. Any corrections are appreciated. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (02/11/85)
In article <8229@watarts.UUCP> dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes: > > For the record, Mormon's believe everyone will make it to heaven. >Indeed, there is no hell. But, my friends, there are three sections >to the afterlife. Almost right. There's also a possibility for hard-core types to get expelled into the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. My understanding is that it takes a heinous crime such as becoming an Elder and then becoming an apostate and denying the truth of the religion ... perhaps some current LDS member could describe other ways of making it? -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (02/14/85)
> > Works are EXPECTED, as a sign that a person has faith, but they DO teach > (according to my discussions with practicing Catholics) that they are not > of themselves sufficient for salvation, and that good works without faith > ought to shame those who have faith but do not engage in good works. > I would like to correct a slight implication made in the above paragraph. Mormons also believe and teach that goods works of themselves are NOT sufficient for salvation. The difference in the Morman view and that of the above (I forgot who) author is found in the last line. Mormans would say that "those who have faith but do not engage in good works" do not exist as that is inconsistant with the definition of faith (Sometimes I think that the differences are all semantics). Another point for those who would say that Mormans are not Christian. Mormans also believe that if it were not for Christ and His Atonement, the combined faith and works of man would not be sufficient for salvation. I find it interesting that some Christians (I assume that they are because they say so and their respective churches do not chastise them for so saying) consider Mormans as fundamentally different from them, but accept as similar other "Christian" sects and ministers who question the divinity of Christ. I have read bible comentaries by ministers of Christian faith (main line and fringe groups) which call into question such things as: 1) Christ was (and is) the Son of God. 2) Christ was Ressurected and lives today. 3) We receive our Eternal Opportunities because of Christ. 4) We should strive to emulate Him and His teachings. All of these things are Morman doctrine. I might personally feel like saying that people who do not believe these things are not Christian, however, I refrain myself in order to remain polite. Tom Slack :-) BTW Paul is considered an apostle by Mormans it is the later (Post Biblical) church that is called into question by them.
jfs@ih1ap.UUCP (Jesse Fred Shumway) (02/16/85)
> Again, one can quote scripture verses all day, but, in the end, > faith is the thing I rely upon. Pahleeeeezz Dave. Don't insult may intelligence and I'll sit on my hands so as not to insult your faith! Jesse Shumway
stout@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/18/85)
>> For the record, Mormon's believe everyone will make it to heaven. >>Indeed, there is no hell. But, my friends, there are three sections >>to the afterlife. >Almost right. There's also a possibility for hard-core types to get >expelled into the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing >of teeth. My understanding is that it takes a heinous crime such as >becoming an Elder and then becoming an apostate and denying the truth >of the religion ... perhaps some current LDS member could describe other >ways of making it? > Jim Gillogly Almost right. Here is the most pertinent quote (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.358): "What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentence for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Instead of thinking that anyone who leaves and denies the church has committed the unpardonable sin, most Mormons tend to think that this is a rare occurrence, reasoning that very few have had the depth of knowledge-- "the heavens opened unto them," etc.--to be capable of that great a sin. Most LDS members I know hesitate to accuse anyone of being a "son of perdition," however bitter he is. Those interested in the LDS concept of the afterlife should read section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the prime source. Bryan Stout ihnp4!uiucdcs!stout
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/23/85)
In article <469@ptsfa.UUCP> wmk@ptsfa.UUCP (Bill Klein) writes: >To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist >Presbyterian and a variety of other "churches" ALL state in their >official doctrine that they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. (They either >excommunicate or damn each other.) No, no, no, no, no! Why do people keep printing this without substantiation? Sean McLinden