The Morg? What's this I hear about dead peoples losing membership there?
Posted on 10/08/2007 7:49:32 AM PDT by colorcountry
Not only is Mormonism a Christian faith, it is the truest form of Christianity, said speaker after speaker on the first day of the 177th Semiannual LDS General Conference. LDS authorities were responding to the allegation that Mormonism isn't part of Christianity. Made by different mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and repeated constantly during coverage of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the claim is based on Mormonism's beliefs about God, its rejection of ancient ideas about the Trinity still widely accepted, and the LDS Church's extra-biblical scriptures. "It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion," said Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland in the afternoon session. "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first [Christians], many of whom were eye-witnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"
{snip}
The day's sermons included many familiar themes, including the importance of faith, the need for pure thoughts and actions, avoiding pornography reaching out to neighbors and eliminating spiritual procrastination. Hinckley talked about the destructive nature of anger in marriages, on the road, and in life, urging Mormons to "control your tempers, to put a smile upon your faces, which will erase anger; speak with words of love and peace, appreciation and respect."
Bump. Excellent!
“Really? Postbiblical? Let’s take an NT quote straight from Christ’s mouth: John 10:30:
“I and the Father are one.””
Note that it doesn’t say ‘one substance’ or ‘one being’. Nowhere is there any discussion of God’s ‘substance’ or any difference drawn between a ‘person’ and a ‘being’ made in the Bible. These are concepts that come out of Greek philosophy and hence are post-biblical novelties. Also note that the source of the quote you are objecting to is not Mormon.
“But he said none of those things. He mentioned two separate persons in the sentence, and he said that those separate persons are one,”
And in John 17 he says:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Was Christ praying that his disciples become one being of the same substance? No, he wanted them to have the same kind of unity and oneness he has with the Father, on oneness of heart and mind and purpose, much as how a husband and wife should also be one. Again, not one being, not of one substance, the very idea of that kind of oneness doesn’t exist in the Bible.
“i.e. that they share the same nature.”
It doesn’t say that, you are reading that into it.
Jefferson’s intention was to draw the readers focus on certain things, it was not a rejection of miracles and you can see in the letter of his I posted where he is quite happy with the Bible, just not happy with what men added after it.
You asked what what different from 1st and 4th century beliefs about the nature of God and I gave you the info. No need to get defensive about it.
Claud,
You are somewhat new to mormon threads here (I say that,
not having seen your name before), so I’d like to give you
at tip...
You wrote, “Let’s examine that grammatically.”
This of course, would be good advice for anyone who actually
was interested in hermeneutics, in Biblical interpretation,
in knowing what the Bible actually says and then means -
and at times, narrowing down what the Bible cannot mean.
In this context however (talking with adherents of mormonism),
you might as well talk about Barney the Dinosaur and his take
on the Bible.
They have no need for grammer
They have no need for sentence structure
They have no need for verb tense or meaning
... or historical context
... or any context
... or historical usage of Greek or Hebrew words
... or systematic theology
... or ANYTHING!
There is only one thing they need.
The mormon church leadership to tell them what to believe.
Once the leadership has spoken, facts no longer matter - unless
you can twist facts to seem to support what the leadership
has said. The hive’s job is to believe and defend.
The mormon understanding of “Bible Study” is to find similar
words in English, regardless of the items above and then
assume they always mean the same thing. Simply “see and say”.
You will not find serious Bible scholarship in the mormon
world. It is unneeded and unwanted. If someone dares speak
or publish facts that go against the leadership, they are
evicted. Not unlike any totalitarian regime. You might as well
speak out in North Korea. In the mormon church, you do not
run the same risk of being killed, just evicted from the
hive.
(ColorCountry, do you want to add anything to this here??)
They do this through a wide variety of published material
which is accessible online through the “Mormon See and Say”
database, which you can see is being quoted non-stop.
Your post was entirely correct though. My point is that to
a mormon, once they have the great subjective experience,
they will insist Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that
the “latter day revelation” is supreme... without need for
troublesome “Bible study” or showing yourself “approved
as a workman”.
Welcome to the threads.
best
ampu
Nowhere? It's everywhere. It's embedded in the very fabric of language itself. Language makes the distinction between persons all by itself. I don't need a philosophical dissertation to tell me that "I" and "he" are two different people.
And you won't get anywhere with me by saying concepts come not out of the Bible but out of Greek philosophy. I'm Catholic. I never held to Sola Scriptura and I don't cotton to this idea that we can proof-text our own religion out of what Scripture says to us personally.
What counts ultimately is the authority of the Church that *wrote* the Scripture. If the Holy Catholic Church says that these Greek philosophical terms accurately describe the nature of God then that's the end of the story. Because the same infallible Church that gave us the Scripture also produced the Ecumenical Councils that interpreted it. I don't go in for this notion that God allowed the Church to be infallible just long enough to get stuff down on paper after which it all fell apart.
Hopefully I can answer your John 17 example when I get some more time. But in the meantime let me make one final observation. I often notice this little sleight-of-hand whereby people say that because a doctrine wasn't explicitly taught by the Fathers then it wasn't believed.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it's a leap of logic to turn that *ambiguity* into a *denial*. In order to make your case, you have to show me not only that the Trinity *was not taught* by the Fathers but that it was *explicitly denied* by them.
So let me shift the burden of proof now. You show me where the Trinity is explicitly denied by the Church Fathers prior to Nicaea.
Well, drop the word "Mormon" from that sentence and in that respect I agree with them! LOL
I'm Catholic. I don't believe in proof-texting Christianity out of thin air, and I do believe that there *has* to be an authority in interpretation over what an individual can get out of it personally.
If what you said is the case then, well, it's the authority of the Catholic Church against that of the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
You did a mighty fine job of describing Mormonism and the mind set of total adherance to the “Morg,” as in the Borg of Star Trek (as we in the post-Mormon world call it).
There can be no dissension, no questioning - it is a hive where only the Queen (prophet/president) issues “opinions.” Once those opinions are issued they are doctrine (of course only until the next “prophet” deems them void because of “new revelation.”)
Go against any of these things and you are asked to leave. Politely at first - then forcefully, including a court of ‘love’ proceeding where you are forced out.
I can show you post after post, where Mormons on FreeRepublic told me I wasn’t one of them. Mostly for stating that the Bible and Church fathers were correct and their interpretation wasn’t. It mattered not one bit that I had been baptized a “member” at age eight and remained active in the Church until I was in my late 20’s - my membership was contigent upon upholiding the “Prophets” past and present and all that they said and did.
I am confused. Were you excommunicated, "forced out," or asked to leave the LDS Church? Or did you ask to have your name removed from the Church records?
And how old were you when your name was finally removed from the Church records?
My Bishop told me to tell you, “it is none of your business.”
Of course I have a very progressive Bishop. I suppose he would be tossed if anyone ever found out who he is. (or who I am for that matter)
You are being evasive.
That is understandable: you do not wish to admit that you have engaged in some exaggeration.
You made wild charges about the "mind set" of Mormons ("total adherance to the 'Morg'") and allege that the LDS Church allows "no dissension, no questioning."
Of course, you also play the victim, saying that you were either asked to leave or forced out of the Church.
So I wonder: Was your name removed from the rolls of the Church when you quit attending in your late 20s? Or was it removed when you joined another church? Or did it happen more recently? Did the LDS Church initiate the action to have your name removed, or did you request that it be done?
Of course I have a very progressive Bishop. I suppose he would be tossed if anyone ever found out who he is. (or who I am for that matter)
A progressive bishop? How can that be in an organization that supposedly allows no questioning, dissension, or independence of thought?
I never said IF or WHEN my name was/will be removed. As I said, it is none of your business. But I can give you links showing Mormon Freepers requesting, then demanding I formally leave, and denying me the right to call myself Mormon - - Which is utterly ridiculous since I and my family were mormons since the 1830’s in Kirkland, Ohio and Far West, MO, they settled Utah and lead the Church.
I happen to have become born again with knowledge that I am saved through the atonement of Christ through no works of my own, and that the Church has lead many astray by being obtuse or deceptive about their beliefs - and too we have seen THAT on this very thread.
I believe God cannot lie. Nor can his Church, and though members are sinners - they should know better and never take part in obscuring their beliefs simply in order to make them more palatable to the “public.”
I think you are doing that very thing logophile, yet you won’t admit it. Those of us who are no longer believing members of the LDS Church uderstand you are being evasive. Why? Are you ashamed?
As far as my “progressive” Bishop is concerned. I already said he would be put out if anyone found out. And so, it is my secret and his precisely because of fear of retribution.
Good day.
You made it my business when you attacked the LDS Church and cited your own experience as evidence. You do so frequently on these threads.
I am not asking that you give the date and time. I just want to know whether your name has been removed from the records of the Church. If so, were you "forced out" or did you have your name removed voluntarily?
But I can give you links showing Mormon Freepers requesting, then demanding I formally leave, and denying me the right to call myself Mormon
That someone would say such things is unfortunate. However, I have not done so.
More to the point, a few anonymous FReepers do not represent the LDS Church. They have no power to demand anything of you or deny you anything. Nevertheless, you write as if they have the ability to force you out of the Church, which is nonsense.
I happen to have become born again with knowledge that I am saved through the atonement of Christ through no works of my own, and that the Church has lead many astray by being obtuse or deceptive about their beliefs - and too we have seen THAT on this very thread.
So when did you formally leave the LDS Church? Or if you have not done so, why would you remain in an organization that has lead so many astray?
As far as my “progressive” Bishop is concerned. I already said he would be put out if anyone found out. And so, it is my secret and his precisely because of fear of retribution.
Complete and utter nonsense. Assuming that you really did talk to your bishop about my post, why would he be "put out" (do you mean "released"?) for giving advice to you? No one here knows who you are or who your bishop may be; and even if they did, none would care what he may have said to you.
And what is the nature of this supposed "secret" that you are protecting? Your membership status is available to any number of persons, including your bishop's counselors, the ward clerk, and the stake president.
If you are going to make public accusations against the LDS Church based on your own experience, you should provide reasons for us to believe that you know what you are talking about. Thus far, you have refused to do so.
The Morg? What's this I hear about dead peoples losing membership there?
Do you seriously doubt that I have been a lifelong Mormon? LOL - then there is no proving it to you. I have posted hyms, primary songs, knowledge of Temple ceremonies, seminary lessons and place of birth, which is enough to prove to anyone truly interested that I am indeed Mormon. Doubt me if you wish, but I will not be revealing anything more personal than I already have on these countless "Mormon" threads.
“You are being evasive.”
HA! From you! After yesterdays exchange on this thread.
:-)
Thanks for making me smile this afternoon!
I do not doubt that you have been a Mormon. I have never challenged you on that account.
However, I do challenge your mischaracterizations of the LDS Church and its members. The picture you paint does not accord with my experience in the Church, or that of many other Mormons I know.
You want to have things both ways. On the one hand, you want everyone to believe you are (or have been) a lifelong Mormon, and therefore knowledgeable about the Church.
On the other hand, you attack the LDS Church and its members at every opportunity.
If you are still a member of the Church, you are both dishonest and disloyal by remaining in the Church. If you are not a member, you are operating under false colors by refusing to acknowledge the fact.
Aha...the dishonest and disloyal approach. That wins them over every time.....LOL
I am neither dishonest nor disloyal. I was baptized at age eight (not exactly an age of consent) and remained where my family planted me. I now acknowledge that the fables of Mormonism are untrue, and tell that to everyone who will listen. I attend Christian Churches, but do not have a “membership” in any of them....I belong securely to Christ. He has chosen me.
If that makes me dishonest and disloyal to Mormonism, then so be it. I owe my devotion to my Savior - - and to no man nor organization - especially not to anyone that lies (about everything).
Attending other churches or feeling that you belong securely to Christ does not make you dishonest or disloyal. However, you are dishonest and disloyal if you remain a member of the LDS Church while telling anyone who will listen that Mormonism is untrue.
You will not say whether you have done the honest thing and officially withdrawn your name from the rolls of the Church (or whether the Church did it for you). I suspect that you are refusing because the truth would undercut your accusations about the LDS Church. But have it your way.
I started this thread by saying that I am a Mormon Christian. I am a Christian because I follow Jesus Christ; I am a Mormon because I believe in the Book of Mormon.
I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I believe it to be a restoration of Christ's original church. As such, I believe it to be the most correct form of Christianity on earth.
Of course, there are many other Christian churches in the world whose adherents are also devoted to Jesus Christ. Although I may disagree with them on particular points of doctrine, I am pleased to acknowledge them as fellow Christians and as brothers and sisters.
C.C. is somewhat of an inigma to me. I don’t understand why she plays so coy about her membership status. I would think she would be as the Zoramites of old & would be proud to renounce her membership publicly. I really don’t know if her claim of past membership is real or Memorex.
Her knowledge of hymns, temple ceremonies,etc., really mean nothing as anyone can look those things up on the web these days & “claim” membership. Her claims about her “progressive” bishop, as well as many other claims, albeit possible, are remotely so as you & I know.
Perhaps she knows it’s one thing to rebel out of ignorance & quite another to do so knowingly. Thus trying to keep the door open ever so slightly. I really don’t know & therefore don’t judge. She does leave one scratching their head however.
I feel sorry for her b/c somewhere along the line the wheels came off in a big way. It’s one thing to walk away & say, it’s not for me. It’s quite another to do so in the vitriolic manner she does. I pray that what ever caused such anger will subside some day & will be replaced by the inexplicable joy that comes from forgiveness & understanding.
“Nowhere? It’s everywhere. It’s embedded in the very fabric of language itself. Language makes the distinction between persons all by itself. I don’t need a philosophical dissertation to tell me that “I” and “he” are two different people.”
But I agree that the Bible says they are two persons, I disagree that anything in the Bible indicates that two persons can be one being in the general sense, or that specifically Christ and the Father are two persons but one being or ‘one substance’. It just isn’t stated there, it only says that they are one and from there you add a dose of Greek philosophy and come up with the Trinity.
The core of the disagreement is in HOW they are one, in what sense they are one with each other. There is no assertion or example of a trinitarian kind of oneness in the scriptures. There are however, many instances in the scriptures of the kind of oneness I say they have, I pointed out one in John 17. Christ wants his followers to be one with each other and one with him IN THE SAME WAY HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER, he wants husbands to be one with their wife, and in all these cases there is no justification for saying he wanted them to become some single being composed of one substance containing different persons.
“And you won’t get anywhere with me by saying concepts come not out of the Bible but out of Greek philosophy. I’m Catholic.”
Are Greek philosophers your apostles? I hope not, but the idea of the Trinity comes from their ideas, not from the apostles Christ called or his own teachings.
“What counts ultimately is the authority of the Church that *wrote* the Scripture.”
The scriptures were written by prophets and apostles, not by a church.
“If the Holy Catholic Church says that these Greek philosophical terms accurately describe the nature of God then that’s the end of the story.”
If the story is ‘Signs That the Original Christian Church Went Apostate After the Apostolic Age’ then I would agree. It isn’t just the terminology, but the ideas themselves that are not in the Bible. At least you concede Greek philosophy had a role in forming the creed.
“I don’t go in for this notion that God allowed the Church to be infallible just long enough to get stuff down on paper after which it all fell apart.”
Again I would agree, the church fell apart before they wrote that stuff down, and I don’t recall the Bible saying the church was infallible. It did say the church would fall away however.
“I often notice this little sleight-of-hand whereby people say that because a doctrine wasn’t explicitly taught by the Fathers then it wasn’t believed.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s a leap of logic to turn that *ambiguity* into a *denial*.”
If someone came along and said the early church fathers believed that the moon was made of green cheese, and defend their position by saying there is no quote of them denying that belief, would you then accept as valid that they did believe that?
You can’t hold the Trinity up as being so important that it divides Christians from non-Christians, then gloss over the fact that it wasn’t taught early on. The early apostles and church fathers did teach about the nature of God, and they did so without claiming they were ‘one being’ or ‘one substance’. The lack of statements for it is perfectly consistent with the claim that it was an idea that came along later, how could they deny a false teaching nobody was teaching in their day?
There are several statements from early church fathers that are supportive of the idea of subordinationism, which is inconsistent with the idea of the Trinity. The article I posted contained several quotes form non-Mormon scholars who examined the writings of the early Church fathers and concluded that they belived in subordinationism, not trinity. If the opinion of the early church fathers is important to you, I would suggest you start by examining the work of those scholars.
You can also find many instances in the Bible that establish the Father and the Son being separate individuals. Consider these examples:
“He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56,Eph 1:20)
“Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16-17
“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)
“When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whosoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you.”John 16:13-14
“It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” John 16:7-8:
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Luke 2:52
“But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Matthew 24:36
“I will confess also before my Father in heaven...him also I will deny before my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33:
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Mark 10: 18
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14: 28
Galatians 1:1 tells us he was raised by his Father. John 8:28 tells us again that Christ learned, even from his Father. Did the Father teach himself?
None of these make any sense except to view the Father and Son and separate individuals. They had separate locations, individual wills and knowledge, difference in rank and goodness. In every instance, in every case they are portrayed as separate, individual beings.
The only recourse for the Trinitarian is to assert that the scriptures don’t mean what they plainly say, that some great ‘mystery’ transforms these verses to mean something not said anywhere in the text. It isn’t just that the idea of the Trinity is absent from the scriptures, it is contradictory to what the scriptures show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.