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."
Yeah!!
Shouldn't he be QUARENTINED or something??
He's liable to infect others!
--MormonDude(Stay healty; FRiends)
Attributing motives or otherwise reading minds of other posters is "making it personal."
No. I do not admit that at all.
Merely stating that you believe other churches are wrong is not an attack. Nor is a positive affirmation of your beliefs. (You should try it.)
In contrast, ridicule, invective, and misrepresentation are attacks.
My apologies.
(I am embarrassed; this is the first time that I have been admonished by the Religion Moderator. It won't happen again.)
I’ll give the Mormons this: It does seem like ancient North Americans looked very white. I remember thinking the reconstructed bust of one of the earliest North Americans looked awfully like Jean-Luc Picard. But then again, that was Canada, not the Olmecs.
Iron artifacts among the Olmecs? Yes, but the book of Mormon says STEEL.
And why would a modern author “loan shift” what a horse was?
>> The Book of Mormon has been around for 177 years. When it first came out there was no evidence of anything claimed in it. If it was faked, you would expect that as time went on it would become less and less credible, but the opposite has happened. <<
It has gotten less credible. The proliferation of millions invested in pseudo-science and odd apologetics doesn’t change that.
If I were to come up with a rationalization for how Mormonism could be the true Christian Church it would be this: that God wanted his people to depend so exclusively on Him, and not on their egos, he “confounded the wise” by making an absolutely nonsensical “history.”
And what damage is that?
Separate *persons*. Not separate beings.
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.
The Scriptures are...let me say this again....not a FULL and COMPLETE manual of Christianity. They are authentic, infallible Apostolic teachings that have been preserved from the Apostolic Age. As such, they deal primarily with the person of Christ and (in the case of the epistles) the issues that were current in the church back then. There's a lot of stuff they simply didn't cover.
The scriptures were written by prophets and apostles, not by a church.
I have no idea how one can make that claim, considering the church was *founded* by those apostles and passed on *their* teachings as preserved in the Scriptures. Peter headed the Church at Rome (and Antioch for a time): he personally appointed Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. James headed the Church at Jerusalem, and a succession of bishops came after him. This supposed division between church and Apostles/Prophets....it simply didn't exist. They were all part of one and the same organization.
Second of all, there were tons and tons of spurious/apocryphal writings floating around in the 2nd century. There was a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Thomas, etc. etc. So how did we end up with the particular books we ended up with? Because the bishops of the Catholic Church established the canon of Scripture--they said that *these* writings were Apostolic and inspired, and *these* writings were not. And how did they make that determination? By comparing the doctrine that was *in* those Scriptures with what those same bishops had always taught.
Whether you realize it or not, everytime you even use the word "Scriptures" you are relying on the authority of the Church that defined those Scriptures once and for all. Now for some strange reason, you want to say that the Church apostasized early on, and that its teaching was not right on the Trinity. Yet you accept its teaching on the Scriptures.
Can't do that. If an Apostate Church decided wrong on the Trinity, then it decided wrong on the Scriptures as well, and you have no reason to consider the Gospel of St. John any more canonical than, say, the Shepherd of Hermas or the Gospel of Judas.
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.
LOL....of course I admit it! Aspects of the "logos" Platonic theology are all over St. John's Gospel. I'm not anymore afraid of Greek theology helping to explain Christianity than I am of Western science. Truth cannot contradict truth....and if the pagan Greeks got something right, bully for them!
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.
Really? The Church fell apart BEFORE the Gospels? Now that's interesting. Because the Gospels/Epistles are the first Christian documents we have...so I'm curious how someone is able to say: in A.D. 33 they taught one thing, and in A.D. 50-100 they taught something else, when we don't actually have any documents from 33 A.D.
And by the way, the Bible does say the Church is infallible. "For you are Peter.....and upon this rock [petra], I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It also calls the church of the living God "the pillar and ground of the truth".
Well, it's not such an either or....there have been plenty of modern-day "prophets" who have made claims as Smith had. Some more believable than others, but all united in their contention that the Catholic Church went off the rails somewhere along the way.
And in so doing, note that they always put themselves above the authority of the Church...you can't judge the Church to be heretical, unless you yourself know what is heretical. But we maintain that you can't actually know what is heretical without the Church.
... but even I can’t help notice that, after expressing incredulity as the FReepers who would “excommunicate you,” Logophile ust told you you’d better be out of the Mormon church.
PRE-CISELY! And that's exactly why the idea of infallibility is a necessary corrolary to ecclesiastical authority. That's why the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth". Even the Orthodox Churches, who reject the Papal claims, believe that the Church is infallible through the Ecumenical Councils.
For my money, that's a better deal than everybody thinking they're right but no one actually knowing if they are.
Another excommunication...
Colorcountry claims extensive knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on her long membership in the Church. When challenged on her misrepresentations, she will point to her family's long history in the Church, as if that makes her some kind of expert.
While I have little doubt that she has been a member of the Church, I do doubt that she is all that knowledgeable. Certainly she has an ax to grind. If it has been years since she attended the Church, or if she left the Church under a cloud, that bears on her credibility.
>> That is exactly the case. Either the keys of the kingdom were passed on to the current pope, or they were lost long ago and restored to Joseph Smith and handed down from there to the current President of the Church. <<
Hmm-hmmm.... And what do we have to support Smith’s claim? Purely his own testimony; he was even tested with an infinitely simple test, and came up with a silly, conveeeeeenient excuse for failing the test.
Not at all. I think she would be better in the LDS Church. (I think everyone would be better in the LDS Church.) But if in fact she is no longer a member, then she should not pretend to be one.
Not so. No one expects you to believe the unsupported testimony of Joseph Smith or any other person. The real test is to study the doctrine and ask God if it is not true. If you do so will real intent, God will show you the truth.
Once again, you seem to have just equated accepting Mormon doctrine with membership, and suggested that if one retains membership without accepting the doctrine, than she is just “pretending to be one.”
Contrast this with the Catholic church, where we will proudly excommunicate those who lead others astray, but welcome the misled in the hopes that God will convert their hearts.
Or did I grossly misunderstand what you meant by “pretend to be one”? If so, how does she in any way misrepresent her membership?
We take much the same attitude.
As for colorcountry, apparently you overlooked Post #257 in which she writes,
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.
Now tell me, what would be the Catholic Church's attitude toward someone who states that the "fables" of Catholicism are untrue, and tells that to everyone who will listen? Would such a person be considered a Catholic in good standing?
There are some fables even within the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church (I would presume) would try to root out those fables and not try in annihilate the one who exposes them.
Unlike the Mormon Church which clings tightly to its fables and ousts anyone, and villifies anyone, who dare go against the hive. Sometimes the truth offends. Would you rather cut out the truth or the offender?
Do you think the Catholic Church would excommunicate a member who would stand up against the horrors of the Inquisition? Or the abuses of some of the early Popes? It doesn’t happen that way. The Catholic Church, unlike the Mormon Church WILL examine its past and rectify it.
Mormons won’t even admit that its early members committed atrocities, whoredoms and fornications. But let one of its “members” point it out, and they are instantly anathema. YOU have clearly pointed the LDS Church position out on this thread. I am not to be trusted. If I retain my membership - I am dishonest and disloyal. If I’ve renounced my membership - I am weak, sinful and apostate. If I have been excommunicated, it is for gross sinfulness or heresey. Do you see Logophile? I cannot win. I cannot reveal my membership status BECAUSE is opens me up to your labeling and gives you a foothold to attack my truthfulness, lifestyle and standing in my community.
Your methods are exactly that of a cultic organization. If one doesn’t stand fast in the dogma, one is kicked to the curb and vilified. Any knowledge that that “outed” person has attained is untrustworthy. The person becomes your target, and not whatever message or information they want to expose.
99% of FreeRepublic’s readers can see the clear evidence that Joseph Smith is a fraud - you cannot. Yet you call me dishonest and untrustworthy. I call you deluded. We’ll let the readers decide.
LOL
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.