firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (08/30/90)
Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? One way to approach this question is to set out basic Christian doctrine, lay alongside it Mormon doctrine, and compare the two. That's what I propose to do here, but the task is not an easy one. First, what is basic Christian doctrine? We have argued in this group about many Christian topics, and do not agree on much of it: the Assumption, whether the Mass is a sacrifice, whether Scripture is infallible, and lots more. That tells me I cannot start with the catechism of one group. Moreover, I can't start with scripture either, since that leaves me vulnerable to the claim that our scriptures have been hopelessly corrupted by successive translations (I may think that claim bogus, but others don't). The one remaining piece of solid ground, around which I think most Christian sects would gather, is the Apostles' Creed, most of which most of us believe most of the time. Secondly, what is Mormon doctrine? That's tougher. Mormonism, you see, is a mystery religion, and like all such it has an exoteric doctrine and one or more levels of esoteric doctrine; these do not always agree - indeed are designed not always to agree. In addition, the doctrine underwent a major change after 1844, when the teachings of Joseph Smith were superseded by those of Brigham Young. The doctrines of the former make up the core of the exoteric, or public teaching, and are preserved almost intact by the Reorganized Church. The secret doctrines are largely the work of the latter. With some trepidation, I propose to take as the essential doctrine the teaching that underpins the Temple ceremonies, since that is considered most important by the Mormons themselves. Finally, this comparison deliberately takes the Apostles' Creed as the standard, and compares Mormon doctrine to it. The reader is advised that the result is not a complete, accurate or fair presentation of Mormonism, any more that a similar exercise using Hindu doctrine would be a fair portrayal of Hinduism. It seeks only to answer the question, can Mormonism reasonably be considered a branch of Christianity, and in my opinion answers it in the negative. -------- 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, No. The being who was the father of Jesus, to whom Mormons pay reverence, is finite, bounded in space and time, and one of many such beings. There are speculations about higher gods, singular or plural, just as there were in pagan Antiquity, but by any reasonable criterion this is polytheism. Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. 2. Maker of heaven and earth: No. the universe is pre-existent, and gods evolve within it. Each god creates his own earth, but even here the gods who created this earth (named Jehovah and Michael) did not do so ex nihilo, but rather formed it from chaotic matter, just as did Marduk in the Babylonian creation epic. 3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. 4. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, No. This one they are very reticent about, but the secret doctrine is that Jesus' incarnation followed the same pattern as that of Herakles or Siegmund: God the Father took on physical form, came down to earth, and impregnated Mary by an act of physical copulation. 5. Born of the Virgin Mary, No. See above. 6. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Yes. 7. Was crucified, dead, and buried, Yes. 8. He descended into hell; Not quite - but a lot of Christians have trouble with this one, so I'll pass. 9. The third day he rose again from the dead, No. There was no physical resurrection; Jesus appeared to his disciples, and later to the inhabitants of the New World, in a spiritual body. The same body, in fact, that he departed to become incarnate. 10. He ascended into heaven, No. There is no one heaven; there are several spiritual planes of existence, divided into regious under the sway of different gods. 11. And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; Yes, if we omit the word 'Almighty', 12. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. No. There is no last judgement: we continue to evolve even after death, on various spiritual planes. Moreover, the dead can make progress through the actions of their incarnate descendents. 13. I believe in the Holy Ghost; No. For public consumption, the Holy Ghost is described as a spirit personage; the inner doctrine is that it is a metaphor for a certain kind of spiritual power. 14. The holy Catholick Church; No, obviously. 15. The Communion of Saints; No. Of all aspects of Mormon doctrine, this is the strangest, and to this writer the most distasteful. Much Mormon ritual is concerned with the organization of beings, living and dead, into power relationships. Thus, women are sealed to men, dead ancestors to living descendents, and children to parents. In all cases, this renders the one sealed eternally subservient to the sealer. There is neither community nor equality: each strives to evolve into the god of his own world, at the apex of an hierarchy of beings bound to obedience. 16. The Forgiveness of sins; No. The Mormon doctrine is that sins must be atoned for by the blood of the sinner. 17. The Resurrection of the body, No. There is no physical resurrection: the dead resume the spiritual bodies they had before birth. 18. And the life everlasting. Yes. -------- Robert Firth
jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jay Windley) (09/02/90)
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: |Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? Strictly, the LDS would not claim to be a "branch" of Christianity. Rather, we are a restoration of the church that Christ founded and which the Apostles preached. |One way to approach this question is to set out basic Christian |doctrine, lay alongside it Mormon doctrine, and compare the two. |That's what I propose to do here, but the task is not an easy one. [...] |The one remaining piece of solid ground, around which I think |most Christian sects would gather, is the Apostles' Creed, most |of which most of us believe most of the time. |Secondly, what is Mormon doctrine? That's tougher. Mormonism, |you see, is a mystery religion, and like all such it has an |exoteric doctrine and one or more levels of esoteric doctrine; |these do not always agree - indeed are designed not always to |agree. In addition, the doctrine underwent a major change |after 1844, when the teachings of Joseph Smith were superseded |by those of Brigham Young. The doctrines of the former make |up the core of the exoteric, or public teaching, and are preserved |almost intact by the Reorganized Church. The secret doctrines |are largely the work of the latter. While I would normally take issue with the above, I would only say that Robert's comparison is already doomed. The Apostles' Creed was set down centuries ago, with only the written scriptures and the medieval Christian tradition as its basis (not to mention endless theological and philosophical entanglements). LDS doctrine derives from the classical Judeo-Christian scripture, modern scripture not accepted by other Christians, and to a lesser extent the teachings of present-day prophets. |With some trepidation, I propose to take as the essential doctrine |the teaching that underpins the Temple ceremonies, since that is |considered most important by the Mormons themselves. |Finally, this comparison deliberately takes the Apostles' Creed as |the standard, and compares Mormon doctrine to it. The reader is |advised that the result is not a complete, accurate or fair |presentation of Mormonism, any more that a similar exercise using |Hindu doctrine would be a fair portrayal of Hinduism. It seeks only |to answer the question, can Mormonism reasonably be considered a |branch of Christianity, and in my opinion answers it in the negative. If Robert's presentation of "Mormonism" is not "complete, accurate, [and] fair", why should anyone consider his Gedankteksperiment of any value? If I (as a Mormon) made a comparison using incomplete, inaccurate, and biased information about some other sect, the whole of net.land would cry 'foul!' |-------- |1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, |No. The being who was the father of Jesus, to whom Mormons |pay reverence, is finite, bounded in space and time, and one |of many such beings. There are speculations about higher gods, |singular or plural, just as there were in pagan Antiquity, |but by any reasonable criterion this is polytheism. We believe God is finite only in His physical form. His tangibility is bounded in space, but not in time; He is eternal. His wisdom, intelligence, power, and all such intangible qualities are unbounded and infinite and extend far beyond our own understanding. Much scripture suggests that God's physical form is finite, and historical evidence suggests that this is similar to the beliefs of the early Christians. Speculation does not make doctrine. |Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can |evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. Are we not commanded to "be perfect" even as God is? Since the doctrine of eternal progression comes from recent revelation, one would expect not to find it in the Creed. Polytheism is the worship of more than one god. There is another -theism whose name escapes me which more accurately describes the LDS view of God; namely, that we worship one God, but do not deny the existence of others. [henotheism --clh] |2. Maker of heaven and earth: |No. the universe is pre-existent, and gods evolve within it. |Each god creates his own earth, but even here the gods who |created this earth (named Jehovah and Michael) did not do so |ex nihilo, but rather formed it from chaotic matter, just as |did Marduk in the Babylonian creation epic. Creatio ex nihilo is not a universal Christian doctrine. The word 'barah' does not mean 'to create from nothing' or 'to bring into existence.' It means 'to form,' 'to organize,' or 'to build.' All these imply the existence of prime matter. The LDS position is most tenable. |3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, |No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his |brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall |evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. If Jesus is the only son of God, why is God referred to as our Father? We believe that Jesus is the only *begotten* Son of God, meaning the only person who did not have a mortal father. The last sentence is blatantly *not* LDS doctrine. We are never independent of God, and always subordinate to Him in glory. |4. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, |No. This one they are very reticent about, but the secret doctrine |is that Jesus' incarnation followed the same pattern as that of |Herakles or Siegmund: God the Father took on physical form, came |down to earth, and impregnated Mary by an act of physical copulation. Robert's misrepresentation of LDS doctrine has crossed the line from inaccurate to offensive. This statement has not one whit of LDS doctrine in it. There is no "secret" doctrine which states or implies that Jesus was conceived in an act of sexual intercourse. Robert's ignorance of LDS doctrine seriously undermines our faith in him as a competent reviewer of our faith. |5. Born of the Virgin Mary, |No. See above. We believe Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. We do believe that she later had children by Joseph in the customary fashion, thus did not remain a virgin to her death. |8. He descended into hell; |Not quite - but a lot of Christians have trouble with this one, so |I'll pass. It hinges on how one defines hell. Since our definition does not agree with some Christian tenets, our interpretation I Peter 3:18-20 may not agree. |9. The third day he rose again from the dead, |No. There was no physical resurrection; Jesus appeared to his |disciples, and later to the inhabitants of the New World, in a |spiritual body. The same body, in fact, that he departed to |become incarnate. Once again Robert's knowledge of LDS doctrine is inadequate. We believe that Christ resurrected on the third day, meaning he took up His body, which was made incorruptible. We believe His appearances to His disciples, to Mary, to the travelers to Emaus, and to the Nephites in the New World were made as a physically resurrected being. |10. He ascended into heaven, |No. There is no one heaven; there are several spiritual planes |of existence, divided into regious under the sway of different |gods. Paul was caught up to the "third heaven." Does not this imply the existence of two others? Robert's description is rather wrong, but this is not the issue. We believe that Jesus ascended to the third heaven, where God dwells. |11. And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; |Yes, if we omit the word 'Almighty', Why? LDS believe in the omnipotence of God. |12. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. |No. There is no last judgement: we continue to evolve even after |death, on various spiritual planes. Moreover, the dead can make |progress through the actions of their incarnate descendents. Patently false. The final judgement, performed by Christ, will assign us to a "spiritual plane" (or 'degree of glory', as LDS terminology has it). All vicarous work for the dead must be done before this judgement. We will have opportunity to progress only within our degree of glory; passing to a higher degree is not possible. |13. I believe in the Holy Ghost; |No. For public consumption, the Holy Ghost is described as |a spirit personage; the inner doctrine is that it is a metaphor |for a certain kind of spiritual power. So far Robert's "inner doctrines" have nothing to do with LDS teachings. At all levels, the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage who testifies of the truth. |15. The Communion of Saints; |No. Of all aspects of Mormon doctrine, this is the strangest, and |to this writer the most distasteful. Much Mormon ritual is concerned |with the organization of beings, living and dead, into power |relationships. Thus, women are sealed to men, dead ancestors to |living descendents, and children to parents. In all cases, this |renders the one sealed eternally subservient to the sealer. There |is neither community nor equality: each strives to evolve into |the god of his own world, at the apex of an hierarchy of beings |bound to obedience. "Power relationship" is misleading. Sealing work for the dead unites families forever, but not in a power hierarchy. It is most analogous to an earthly family. I obeyed my father because I knew he was older and wiser than I, not because I was "bound to obedience." Perhaps LDS doctrines seem distasteful because Robert doesn't under- stand them. |16. The Forgiveness of sins; |No. The Mormon doctrine is that sins must be atoned for by the |blood of the sinner. Not exactly. The hairsplit neglects to mention that this is the case only for the unrepentent and deliberate sinner. Those who repent are eligible for the mercy of God unto the forgiveness of sins. |17. The Resurrection of the body, |No. There is no physical resurrection: the dead resume the |spiritual bodies they had before birth. Blatantly, obviously false. One of the most well-known doctrines of the LDS church is that we will all be physically resurrected. |-------- If you inserted "begotten" between "only" and "Son", and omitted the Communion of the Saints clause, nearly all LDS would find the Apostle's Creed quite palatable. Since this was to be Robert's basis of determining one's "Christianity," the LDS church passes with at least as many flying colors as most Protestant faiths. The problem seems to be that Robert has given us a completely inaccurate view of LDS doctrine (as promised) and then lamented when these imaginings do not agree with a predominantly Catholic doctrine. He seems also to want to equate LDS precepts with 'pagan' teachings. There are many similarities between 'pagan' dogmas and Christian principles, which does not prove that one derives from the other. He is just trying to create a problem where none exists. For the hundredth time, the LDS church is a Christian church. We believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God, that through His atonement we may be saved, and that He died and rose again from the grave. We teach what we believe are His doctrines. We allow all men to worship as they see fit, though we would share our religion with them. -- Jay Windley - CIS Dept. - Kansas State University NET: jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu VOICE: (913) 532-5968 FAX: (913) 532-6722 USnail: 323 Seaton Hall, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506 Obligatory quote: "" -- /dev/null [Actually, the Apostles' Creed is a bit older than you indicate. I don't have the information here to establish a date, but I think it's 3rd Cent. or before. Thus it generally involves the technical terms used in later discussions. It's very unlikely that it actually goes back to the apostles. There are a number of baptismal creeds from the 2nd and 3rd cents., with slight variations in different areas. The Apostle's Creed seems to be related to them. It certainly isn't based on medieval sources, though, since it's quite a bit earlier. I would think that you could interpret "communion of saints" in an acceptable manner, if that's your only problem. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/02/90)
In article <Aug.30.00.34.58.1990.22803@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? I am not greatly concerned if Robert or any other man thinks I a Christian or not. What counts is my relationship with God and his judgement on me. However this his posting contains rather severe distortions of LDS (Mormon) doctrine so I feel compelled to respond. >One way to approach this question is to set out basic Christian >doctrine, lay alongside it Mormon doctrine, and compare the two. >That's what I propose to do here, but the task is not an easy one. Not as hard as you claim although I agree that you have failed. >First, what is basic Christian doctrine? We have argued in this >group about many Christian topics, and do not agree on much of >it: the Assumption, whether the Mass is a sacrifice, whether >Scripture is infallible, and lots more. That tells me I cannot >start with the catechism of one group. Moreover, I can't start >with scripture either, since that leaves me vulnerable to the >claim that our scriptures have been hopelessly corrupted by >successive translations (I may think that claim bogus, but >others don't). Actually few LDS would claim that our scriptures have been "hopelessly corrupted." While we think there are a few errors, they are generally quite reliable. The problem is that different people interpret them differently. We may agree to believe the Bible but we will probably not agree on what some passages really mean. >The one remaining piece of solid ground, around which I think >most Christian sects would gather, is the Apostles' Creed, most >of which most of us believe most of the time. I don't know what fraction of Christians accept the Apostle's Creed but I for one would not put it on the same plane with scripture. I think it is the product of men (good men, but men nevertheless) trying to define their beliefs. I do not accept it as binding. >Secondly, what is Mormon doctrine? That's tougher. Mormonism, >you see, is a mystery religion, and like all such it has an >exoteric doctrine and one or more levels of esoteric doctrine; >these do not always agree - indeed are designed not always to >agree. In addition, the doctrine underwent a major change >after 1844, when the teachings of Joseph Smith were superseded >by those of Brigham Young. The doctrines of the former make >up the core of the exoteric, or public teaching, and are preserved >almost intact by the Reorganized Church. The secret doctrines >are largely the work of the latter. The above paragraph is total garbage. There is no secret doctrine in the LDS Church and I can't think of any major teachings not originally taught by Joseph Smith (although of course clarifications have come from later prophets). Sorry for the strong wording but let's call a spade a spade. If you want to discuss this, trot out your evidence. >With some trepidation, I propose to take as the essential doctrine >the teaching that underpins the Temple ceremonies, since that is >considered most important by the Mormons themselves. Unfortunately you demonstrate a profound ignorance of these teachings. All of them point to Jesus Christ and what he did for us. >Finally, this comparison deliberately takes the Apostles' Creed as >the standard, and compares Mormon doctrine to it. The reader is >advised that the result is not a complete, accurate or fair ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >presentation of Mormonism, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, we definitely agree here! >-------- >1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, >No. The being who was the father of Jesus, to whom Mormons >pay reverence, is finite, bounded in space and time, and one >of many such beings. There are speculations about higher gods, >singular or plural, just as there were in pagan Antiquity, >but by any reasonable criterion this is polytheism. Quite distorted. I have answered this charge before in this forum, within the last 2 months so probably should not spend the bandwidth on it now. If you want my answer, email me and I will send it to you. >Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can >evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. We believe we will never be equal to the Father. >2. Maker of heaven and earth: >No. the universe is pre-existent, and gods evolve within it. >Each god creates his own earth, but even here the gods who >created this earth (named Jehovah and Michael) did not do so >ex nihilo, but rather formed it from chaotic matter, just as >did Marduk in the Babylonian creation epic. Rather distorted. Even then the Hebrew word translated "create" in Genesis has about the same meaning as our word "make." Creating from existing material fits quite nicely. The ex nihilo creation is not at all necessary to the Biblical text. >3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, >No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his >brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall >evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. No! We will never be higher than Jesus! While we believe we were all spirit children of God, Jesus is the only person ever born on this earth as direct offspring of Heavenly Father. >4. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, >No. This one they are very reticent about, but the secret doctrine >is that Jesus' incarnation followed the same pattern as that of >Herakles or Siegmund: God the Father took on physical form, came >down to earth, and impregnated Mary by an act of physical copulation. Once again you (or more likely Walter Martin whom you are probably quoting) take a little misunderstanding and blow it all out of proportion. Are you claiming that Jesus was not the son of God the Father but of the Holy Ghost? I think that Matthew's statement that Mary was with child of the Holy Ghost means that only through the power of the Holy Ghost could she be impregnated by the Father. The Father is Jesus' father in the flesh. As for physical copulation, it is not part of LDS doctrine (although some speculation to that effect was printed and of course siezed upon by Martin as absolute doctrine since it fit his purpose). >5. Born of the Virgin Mary, >No. See above. Wrong again. See above. (stuff deleted where Robert sees no problems with the LDS position) >8. Descended into Hell. >Not quite - but a lot of Christians have trouble with this one, so >I'll pass. Interesting. You have put this creed up as the test of Christianity but now you say a lot of Christians have trouble with this so it doesn't count! However, LDS belief is that Jesus did descend into what we might call "Hell" and preach to the people there. I've had conversations with people who seem to be quite knowledgable about this belief in the Roman Catholic Church and our beliefs are quite similar. >9. The third day he rose again from the dead, >No. There was no physical resurrection; Jesus appeared to his >disciples, and later to the inhabitants of the New World, in a >spiritual body. The same body, in fact, that he departed to >become incarnate. Absolutely 100% wrong! Where did you get this trash? LDS belief is that he was physically resurrected and that when he appeared to the New World inhabitants he even allowed them to feel the wounds in his hands and side. >10. He ascended into heaven, >No. There is no one heaven; there are several spiritual planes >of existence, divided into regions under the sway of different >gods. Totally wrong! >11. And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; >Yes, if we omit the word 'Almighty', No, we don't need to omit the word 'Almighty.' >12. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. >No. There is no last judgement: we continue to evolve even after >death, on various spiritual planes. Moreover, the dead can make >progress through the actions of their incarnate descendents. More distortion. We definitely believe he will come to judge the quick and the dead. >13. I believe in the Holy Ghost; >No. For public consumption, the Holy Ghost is described as >a spirit personage; the inner doctrine is that it is a metaphor >for a certain kind of spiritual power. This is a bald-faced lie. >14. The holy Catholick Church; >No, obviously. Of course this also excludes Protestants (except maybe Anglicans) from Christianity. Maybe the Apostle's Creed isn't such a good test of who is a Christian as you claim. >15. The Communion of Saints; >No. Of all aspects of Mormon doctrine, this is the strangest, and >to this writer the most distasteful. Much Mormon ritual is concerned >with the organization of beings, living and dead, into power >relationships. Thus, women are sealed to men, dead ancestors to >living descendents, and children to parents. In all cases, this >renders the one sealed eternally subservient to the sealer. There >is neither community nor equality: each strives to evolve into >the god of his own world, at the apex of an hierarchy of beings >bound to obedience. More distortion. The relationships are family relationships and LDS doctrine clearly teaches that "power" comes through love, patience, long-suffering and kindness. See Doctrine and Covenants section 121. >16. The Forgiveness of sins; >No. The Mormon doctrine is that sins must be atoned for by the >blood of the sinner. Wrong again. Cindy Smith posted the same charge and I answered it, again within the last 2 months. >17. The Resurrection of the body, >No. There is no physical resurrection: the dead resume the >spiritual bodies they had before birth. Again totally wrong. We quite clearly teach that the resurrection is a reuniting of the spirit (which we had before birth) and a purified, immortal body. >18. And the life everlasting. >Yes. Robert, I think you have demonstrated the dangers of getting your ideas of somebody's beliefs only from their enemies. Your posting shows almost no understanding of LDS doctrine. In fact I recognize most of it as standard stuff put out my "Mormon-bashers," most notably of late by Walter Martin and someone named Decker whose first name I don't remember. If you really want to know what we believe you ought to also read something like _A Marvelous Work and a Wonder_ by LeGrande Richards. You should also of course read the Book of Mormon, commenting on our beliefs without reading it is like commenting on Jewish beliefs without reading the Pentatuch. [In response to your comment about the "holy, catholic Church": The term catholic means universal. The creed is used by Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. For Protestants, the meaning of this clause in the creed is that the real Church is one, united by its common unity with Christ, whatever disunity may exist among church organizations. It is certainly confusing for the term catholic to be used both in its original meaning of universal and to refer to a specific church tradition, but if you know the history it's easy to see where both usages came from. It isn't the only word to have multiple meanings. --clh]
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (09/02/90)
Lynn, here. Just a short selection to showthe kind of accuracy Mr. Firth represents in his latest posting: > Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 30-Aug-90 Mormonism and > Christianity Robert Firth@sei.cmu.edu (5656) > 9. The third day he rose again from the dead, > No. There was no physical resurrection; Jesus appeared to his > disciples, and later to the inhabitants of the New World, in a > spiritual body. The same body, in fact, that he departed to > become incarnate. Nonsense. LDS believe Christ was physically resurrected--and that the 2,500 or so "Americans" physically touched Christ's *physical*, resurrected body (touching the prints of the nails and the wound in His side). > 13. I believe in the Holy Ghost; > No. For public consumption, the Holy Ghost is described as > a spirit personage; the inner doctrine is that it is a metaphor > for a certain kind of spiritual power. More baloney. LDS doctrine *clearly* teaches that the Holy Ghost is a personage--there is no "inner [metaphorical] doctrine." Where *do* you get this stuff, Mr. Firth?
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (09/04/90)
In article <Sep.1.23.50.15.1990.6733@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >In article <Aug.30.00.34.58.1990.22803@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >>Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? >>15. The Communion of Saints; >>relationships. Thus, women are sealed to men, dead ancestors to >>living descendents, and children to parents. In all cases, this >>renders the one sealed eternally subservient to the sealer. There >More distortion. The relationships are family relationships and LDS >doctrine clearly teaches that "power" comes through love, patience, >long-suffering and kindness. See Doctrine and Covenants section >121. I don't know if these are considered "power" relationships or not, but I do find them in conflict with the teachings of Jesus. It is my understanding that sealing a man with a wife in the LDS church will cause them to be married in heaven. However, Jesus teaches in Luke 20:27-40 (also found in Matt and Mark) that people in heaven can not be married at all. Am I misinformed about LDS doctrine? If not, how do Mormons deal with this passage? -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
bralick@osgiliath.endor.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (09/04/90)
In article <Sep.1.23.50.15.1990.6733@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: | In article <Aug.30.00.34.58.1990.22803@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: | ... | >Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can | >evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. | | We believe we will never be equal to the Father. I guess I wonder whom the father worships. If he was "once as we are" (which I don't think you have repudiated) then he worshipped (and perhaps still does) some god, too. I guess I would tend to worship the top god in the chain (the least upper bound if there is no top (i.e. an infinite chain of gods)). | ... | >3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, ~~~~ | | >No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | >brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall | >evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. | | No! We will never be higher than Jesus! While we believe we were ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | all spirit children of God, Jesus is the only person ever born on | this earth as direct offspring of Heavenly Father. Note that Robert stated the part of the Apostles' Creed that makes the doctrinal point that Jesus is the _only_ Son of God. He then went on to try to establish LDS doctrine as a counterpoint to it -- Hal then disagreed with Robert's interpretation of LDS doctrine, but _not_ with the main point that the Mormon religion does _not_ believe that Jesus is the _only_ Son of God. I wonder about the concept of the "spirit children" -- note, BTW, that it does _not_ say spirit _creation_ -- so how is this spirit_father- spirit_child relationship formed? A Mormon friend of mine once said to me when explaining Mormon doctrine that: Our spirits are the children of his spirit; our bodies, however, are not (except in the case of Jesus, who also happens to be his first born). (Incidentally, who is the mother? The general belief is that yes, there is one, but we don't talk much about Her.) So my friend suggested that there is a spirit_mother also. Is this doctrinal? If not then why is the term _children_ used instead of _creation_? Regards, -- Will bralick@sol4.cs.psu.edu It was a curious idea ... that the Church should adapt the faith to suit the world rather than the other way around, or that the "contemporary" [If you recall, Hal said he would agree to saying that Christ is God's only begotten Son. He considers the word "begotten" essential. The term "child of God" is used in a variety of metaphorical and metaphysical senses. The term "begotten" is traditionally used to define the specific sense in which it is used of Christ. So verbally at least I think there is no problem with Hal's statement. Rather than continuing the somewhat inquisitorial tone that the discussion has had so far, I'd like simply to ask one of our LDS correspondents for a brief description of their concept of God, his relationship to Christ and to others (including Adam, Lucifer, and other humans -- I mention Lucifer specifically because of various comments that have been made here, and Adam because that seems a good test case), and their concept of humans, including any idea of preexistence and their future as "gods" (whatever that means). From what I know of LDS doctrine, the primary area in which there is a distinction from classical Christian doctrine is this one. What I've gathered so far from LDS postings here and in talk.religion.misc is that they do not see the Father, Son, and humans as being different kinds of entity. However the practical effects of this may not be as serious as it could seem, since they seem to still retain God as creator and ruler of this universe, and acknowledge us as being entirely dependent upon him. Where the difference is most likely to come home to roost is in Christology. In orthodox theology Christ is both eternal Son of God, begotten before all worlds, and the son of Mary, born in Palestine 2000 years ago. It's unclear to me how LDS theology deals with this, though I can imagine some ways. --clh]
fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (09/04/90)
In article <Sep.1.23.50.15.1990.6733@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >In article <Aug.30.00.34.58.1990.22803@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: > >>Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? > [deleted Robert Firth's comparision of the Apostles Creed and his perception of LDS beliefs, along with Hal Lillywhite's commentary on his distortions and inaccuracies.] [Robert then makes the following comment:] > >Robert, I think you have demonstrated the dangers of getting your >ideas of somebody's beliefs only from their enemies. Your posting >shows almost no understanding of LDS doctrine. In fact I recognize >most of it as standard stuff put out my "Mormon-bashers," most >notably of late by Walter Martin and someone named Decker whose >first name I don't remember. If you really want to know what we >believe you ought to also read something like _A Marvelous Work and >a Wonder_ by LeGrande Richards. You should also of course read the >Book of Mormon, commenting on our beliefs without reading it is like >commenting on Jewish beliefs without reading the Pentatuch. > As a Catholic who is sincerely investigating the LDS faith, I would like to comment on this. I cannot possibly express the wideness of the gulf between popular anti-Mormon books and actual Mormon beliefs. For the past 4 months I have explored everything from doctrinal issues to the historical rise of the LDS church. I have inquired of authorities from the Catholic Church and the LDS church, and read dozens of books published by the LDS Church (including the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine And Covenants) and non-LDS members. This weekend, I finally decided to read _The_God_Makers_, a much-publicized "true account" of what the LDS church is "really" like, by Decker. I laughed at first. In order to best explain its character, I would liken it to the Enquirer's investigation of Elvis' death. The scholarship is awful, and the the book even attempts to link the LDS church to Satanism. That book errs greatly on the side of gross misinformation. It includes lots of distortion of actual doctrine to link it tentatively to reality. Previous posters who are actual LDS members have sufficiently pointed out the inaccuracies and distortions which have been propagated on the net. Anyone who wishes to sincerely discover what the LDS church believes can take a simple step: visit a library at a major university. I have looked at Stanford and USC, and found to my delight rows upon rows of books, published both by the Church and by non-church members who are less biased in their assessment. In this latter category, you can find serious discussions of Mormon beliefs, although you will have to weed out some of the more flagrant examples of prejudice. You will also find volumes containing the teachings of the modern prophets of the church, so you can discover what they said for yourself. Most importantly, you will find books that clearly lay out their beliefs for anyone to see. There is no secrecy here. If you are more bold, find some missionaries and talk to them. Look up a bishop in the phone book and call him. The members of the LDS church are by no means afraid to talk about their faith and explain their beliefs to others. You will find their frankness in direct contrast to the supposed "secret cult" image that some people have spread around. The book _A_Marvelous_Work_And_A_Wonder_, mentioned above, is a great place to start reading. I will sometime later post a list of the books I have read and found to be useful. I guess my point is that if you are really sincere about finding out what the LDS church believes, then you will clearly see the falsehoods rampant in anti-Mormon literature, regardless of whether you are remotely interested in converting. Daniel Zappala
barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (09/14/90)
> > Lets have some intelligent and meaningful discussion of LDS doctrines and > believes, instead of mudslinging. > I think a major obstacle to understanding is the lds claim to Joseph S as a prophet. Many have convincing evidence that Joseph is not prophet as defined by orthodox christianity. Early documents that cast doubt on his authenticity are usually brushed aside by lds people as minor discepancies or not note-worthy. As one who takes it serious, i take offense at being so loosely brushed aside, and ususally branded an enemy. Of course, anyone who can't see the truth of the prophet Joseph cannot be led by God, so why take anyone of this type seriously?(alittle sarcasm there). I have found the church leaders and historians when writing their own history make liberal changes here and there to polish the history for public consumption with little regard for explanation, or brutal honesty. This leads me to believe the church accepts _the end result justifies the means_ principle, and is not honest. barry olson
farkas@qual.eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.23.53.51.1990.6298@athos.rutgers.edu>, barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> >> Lets have some intelligent and meaningful discussion of LDS doctrines and >> believes, instead of mudslinging. >> > >I think a major obstacle to understanding is the lds claim to Joseph >S as a prophet. Many have convincing evidence that Joseph is not prophet >as defined by orthodox christianity. My comments were not specific, but a general response to a lot of anti- Mormon claims which has no fundation. Presentation of facts which are not true, badly distorted and misinterpreted is the one I object against. Let me ask you the question, why is the fact that we believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet, and others don't, prevent a meaningful discussion of the LDS believes? I have no problem at all looking at each of our believes on its own merit. I believe that there is a very big problem from the other side. That is, the mind set which most anti-Mormons have that there can't be any more prophets, therefore, any one who claims to be a prophet can't possibly say anything which is true. There is a paranoia that if they admit that the prophet Joseph Smith did say some thing which was true, they would have to actually acknowledge it. By the way, please, do define who is a prophet. The problem with the "orthodox Christian" definations that they are specifically designed by a mind set which assumes that there can't be any more prophets, which belief is not biblical, but an apostate belief. Ironically, I personally have not heard one single defination of a prophet yet, which wouldn't make at least one Bible prophet a false prophet. >Early documents that cast doubt on his authenticity are usually brushed >aside by lds people as minor discepancies or not note-worthy. > I don't believe that we brush them a side. We may question the source and the accuracy of the information. Do you have a problem with it, or do you want us to accept everything which the professed enemies of my church write and say, regardless if they are true or not? And please, don't tell me that we are paranoid. The persecution which my church went through is a historical fact. Can you tell me another case where the governor of a state issued an extermination order against any other church? However, I am sure that you are an honest person, and you are very well familiar with the persecution which my church went through. Some time, listening to some of the anti-Mormons, I begin to wonder if some members of the Missouri mob are still around. >As one who takes it serious, i take offense at being so loosely brushed >aside, and ususally branded an enemy. Of course, anyone who can't see >the truth of the prophet Joseph cannot be led by God, so why take anyone >of this type seriously?(alittle sarcasm there). You are right, you were sarcastic. In fact what you said does gross injustice to what we believe in. The fact that we believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet, and the fact that we believe that the Lord has a living prophet today, doen't mean that we don't believe that others are led by the Holy Ghost, whether Cristian or not. >I have found the church leaders and historians when writing their own >history make liberal changes here and there to polish the history for >public consumption with little regard for explanation, or brutal honesty. >This leads me to believe the church accepts _the end result justifies the >means_ principle, and is not honest. > First of all, I won't disagree with your statement above. We may have a disagreemet regarding what was left out, and if it was relevent or not. Also, we may disagree if what others claim is in fact true. I, of course, speak about the history of my own church. I am not going to defend others. >barry olson I see no reason whatsoever why we can't have a meaningful discussion of LDS believes. I have extended a challenge to look at any one of our believes, and to see if they have any biblical foundations or not. Are you willing to accept this challenge? If you do, we need to lay down the rules by which we will agree to abide by. Here are some of my suggestions: o Stick with the subject. o Strictly use the Bible. o Each one of us will do a quick summary at the end and we will categorize our conclusion as follows: 1. biblical 2. have biblical basis, but not conclusive 3. don't have any biblical basis With brotherly love, Frank
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.23.53.51.1990.6298@athos.rutgers.edu> barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> Lets have some intelligent and meaningful discussion of LDS doctrines and >> believes, instead of mudslinging. >I think a major obstacle to understanding is the lds claim to Joseph >S as a prophet. Many have convincing evidence that Joseph is not prophet >as defined by orthodox christianity. >Early documents that cast doubt on his authenticity are usually brushed >aside by lds people as minor discepancies or not note-worthy. Or just plain wrong. Barry, it's rather hard to answer such a non-specific charge as "early documents..." If you'll be a bit more specific maybe we can talk. I have examined most if not all of your previous accusations here and on t.r.m and found them to be based either on misunderstanding or on some very unreliable sources. Face it Barry, any reasonably competent investigator tries to judge the reliability of his sources, even primary documents. Accepting them uncritically leads to contradicitions and errors. If you are saying that we have to defend everything in the _Journal of Discourses_ of course I'll refuse, the thing is simply no more reliable than the gospels of Nicodemus and Phillip are for early Christians. We can get useful insights from all but they ought not be swallowed whole. >I have found the church leaders and historians when writing their own >history make liberal changes here and there to polish the history for >public consumption with little regard for explanation, or brutal honesty. >This leads me to believe the church accepts _the end result justifies the >means_ principle, and is not honest. Again this accusation is impossible to either confirm or refute since you don't give any specifics, not even the name of any of these writers.