Judaism evolved from polytheism? Mormonism right?

[dianaiad]

The problem, from the Catholic perspective, is your beliefs on the nature of God, which are incompatible with what we believe God has revealed about Himself and has been taught from the beginning of Christianity. Such beliefs include the Father having a body of flesh and bones and having been a man, the Father being married to a Heavenly Mother, the Son being the literal offspring of the Father and Heavenly Mother (and therefore had to be created/“organized” in His pre-mortal existence), the belief that God and man are of the same species ontologically, the belief in a plurality of Gods, etc.

We aren’t Catholic, sir. Nor do we claim to be so. We claim to belong to the larger Christian world.

Catholicism teaches that the basic facts of the nature of God were infallibly defined at various inspired Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, to deny/not hold to such teachings, in our belief, places a belief system outside of Christianity, since we hold that the belief in the Trinity is a basic fact of Christian belief.

Who said that “Christian” = “Trinitarian?” Who gets to say so?

This does not mean that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Christadelphians, etc. are going to Hell, as I’ve already stated.

You have the right to worship the Father through the Son. We simply believe that we are not worshipping the same Father through the Son, since we hold incompatible beliefs on who They actually are, in contrast to the various Protestant churches, which, while not having any priesthood authority or sacraments, still hold to the definitions of who God is from the inspired Ecumenical Councils.

We don’t expect you to agree with this, since you don’t, but that is how we see it.

The problem, as I see it, is that once it is agreed upon that one group is not another (mutual agreement), then that is sufficient. When one group decides to redefine a term so that it alone (or those with whom they specifically agree) can fulfill all the requirements, it is committing a fallacy of composition…a ‘true Scot’ fallacy…especially when doing so excludes groups that absolutely comply with the one universally accepted requirement.

For instance; there isn’t a single group, Christian or not, that would claim that putting the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth at the center of one’s belief system is not a requirement for 'Christianity." Once that is agreed on, people and groups begin to disagree. Which group gets to decide what additional ‘must have’ is required for 'true Christianity?"

I contend that nobody has. True, there seem to be about three times as many Catholics as non-Catholics in the Christian world, but over three hundred million people is still a sizable group…and how many of them aren’t quite ‘trinitarian’ enough for you? They are still Christian.

Again, I submit that there is one, and ONLY one reason to deny any group fellowship in that larger “Christian” group, and it is not a good one. In fact, while denying Christianity to a specific group isn’t always followed by the persecution of that group, it usually does, and religious persecution of one Christian group by another is always preceded by that booting out of the ‘club,’ so to speak.

So, I humbly and sincerely submit that…y’all are wrong about this and by declaring that "Mormons aren’t Christians,’ the church is following a very nasty precedent.

 

[dmar198]

Would you advise anybody to go to an ex-Catholic for information about Catholicism?

Depends on the ex-Catholic. Does he represent Catholic teaching accurately?

It’s simply an ‘…ism.’

Like modalism, which in my experience is what most people end up describing when they claim they are trinitarians.

An -ism isn’t simply an appendix to words. It denotes a belief system, and beliefs matter. Modalism and henotheism are both heresies. The latter just happens to be more sharply rebuked in Scripture, which does not say only to respect God before all other gods (which it does say), but also that all other gods are nought, nothing, nonexistant, falsehoods. Mormonism, of course, says otherwise, which is why we are obliged to tell you to come out of her. And happily, with charity and love.

We aren’t Catholic.

Thanks for notifying us.

We aren’t Protestant. We aren’t Baptist or Lutheran or Methodist or Episcopalian.

As far as I’m concerned, you are…you just happen to be non-Trinitarian, henotheistic Protestants. You disagree on THIS essential instead of on THAT essential, but since you disagree on an essential, and because of your origin, you get lumped in with the Protestants in my book.

We are not Orthodox nor orthodox Christians. We don’t claim to be any of those.

You are not orthodox Christians, definitely, and that should be of some concern to you. Unless you think orthodoxy is bad…it means “right doctrine.” Is that a bad thing to Mormons?

We are, however, Christian because Jesus Christ is at the center of our belief system.

Having Christ at the center of your belief system is not sufficient to make you Christian. The Donatists had Christ at the center of their belief system, but the Bible calls them antichristian because they denied that Christ has come in the flesh, in the substance of humanity. Mormons are not Christian for a different reason: they deny that Christ is one with the Father in the substance of divinity. So there you go.

(shrug) It seems to me that Catholicism (and all the other individual Christian ‘isms’) of the world would be satisfied with simply acknowledging that we are not specifially them–something we agree with.

What would that accomplish? That’s not even taking a step. That’s just affirming what no one denies. A real effort at unity and fulfillment of the Great Commission, it is not.

However, y’all have to go that extra mile and deny us the very right to the worship of God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ;

By all means, do that. We are trying to get you to do that; Mormonism is just an obstacle in the path to that end, since it denies the union-as-Triunion relationship between the Father and the Son. Hence our attempts to remove that particular obstacle.

[You want] to deny us the use of the very name of our church,

Moreover, we want to deny that your establishment is a church at all. That’s because we LOVE the name of Christ and the significance of the Church, and want it properly respected and rightly used. We don’t want errors proclaimed in the name of Christ and His Church; hence, we don’t want Mormons to remain in Mormonism.

and the very center of our faith.

We see you proclaiming Christ as the center of your faith while violating His teachings. To us, this is a great sorrow. Wouldn’t you want to stop it as well? And yet you boast that you don’t return the favor. It can only mean to me that Mormonism doesn’t respect the name of Christ enough to refuse it to those who teach error. It would be better, if you truly believe your teachings about Christ, to say that radical deviations from it are not Christian, than to do as you do and promote good-feeling language without the substance, which is proper respect for God’s Name.

 

[dmar198]

We aren’t Catholic, sir. Nor do we claim to be so. We claim to belong to the larger Christian world.

I’m glad we have a chance to examine that claim. “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs. Since the second century at least, it has been tied to the Apostles’ Creed, which Mormons reject. Now they want to redefine Christian to include them. Sorry: words have meanings, they cannot be changed merely to be inclusive.

Who said that “Christian” = “Trinitarian?” Who gets to say so?

Good question. Let’s compare our answers. We say Christian should be defined by the original Church of Christ. You say, if I am understanding your argument correctly, that it should be defined in a “least common denominator” approach: since everybody agrees that it involves putting Christ at the center of your belief system, but everybody differs on what it means after that, we should go with what everyone agrees on.

My idea results in Mormonism being non-Christian. Your idea assumes everybody has equal say on the meaning of Christian, and therefore disagreements cancel each other out and we have to go only with what everyone agrees on. Your solution is your problem. It is illogical first, and second it won’t work, since it depends on fluctuating human opinion. What if someone decides for their own church that “Christian” DOESN’T have to mean putting Christ as center? Then you’re out of that criterion as well. Alas, let us not found our definitions on human opinion that shifts with every wind of doctrine, but on the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The problem, as I see it, is that once it is agreed upon that one group is not another (mutual agreement), then that is sufficient.

But it’s not. It doesn’t accomplish anything to point out that I am not you, and your group is not my group. That defines nothing but the limits of our respective groups; it does nothing to define criteria for genuine Christianity.

When one group decides to redefine a term so that it alone (or those with whom they specifically agree) can fulfill all the requirements, it is committing a fallacy of composition…a ‘true Scot’ fallacy…

You can’t criticize people for redefining terms when your own definition depends on how many people agree on what “Christian” means. Counting the heads will always give fluctuating results depending on who’s voting.

Again, I submit that there is one, and ONLY one reason to deny any group fellowship in that larger “Christian” group, and it is not a good one.

I gave you a better one. As Microsoft gets to define Microsoft’s constitution, so the Church gets to define the Church’s constitution. You’re not currently in it. I pray you someday will be.

In fact, while denying Christianity to a specific group isn’t always followed by the persecution of that group, it usually does, and religious persecution of one Christian group by another is always preceded by that booting out of the ‘club,’ so to speak.

For someone concerned about logical fallacies, you sure didn’t catch your own ad-hominem, did you? Nor did you catch your own inconsistency in applying it. For you have admitted that persecution doesn’t necessarily follow from denying your group Christian status; well, let’s debate results that actually follow from the premises, and not judge a Church by the caliber of its sinners. I’ve submitted my criticisms; I’ll be happy to know of your responses.

God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[dianaiad]

Depends on the ex-Catholic. Does he represent Catholic teaching accurately?

Does it matter? Even if he does, what he tells you would have to be confirmed by a Catholic in good standing or by Catholic sources. An Ex of any faith is, at best, a secondary source that MUST be confirmed. Why bother?

Besides, I’ve never met an ex-anything that could be accurate about the belief he left. The bias is too ingrained.

An -ism isn’t simply an appendix to words. It denotes a belief system, and beliefs matter. Modalism and henotheism are both heresies.

YOU believe that they are heresies. Those who subscribe to them think they are truth. “Heresy,” after all, IS a relative term; that is, it can’t just stand alone. It must be a heresy FROM something.

What is that phrase…'Treason never prospers, for if it does, none dare call it treason?" The same is true of ‘heresy.’

The latter just happens to be more sharply rebuked in Scripture, which does not say only to respect God before all other gods (which it does say), but also that all other gods are nought, nothing, nonexistant, falsehoods. Mormonism, of course, says otherwise, which is why we are obliged to tell you to come out of her. And happily, with charity and love. Thanks for notifying us.

What, like the big fat “LDS” sign under my name isn’t enough to let you know what faith I follow?

As far as I’m concerned, you are…you just happen to be non-Trinitarian, henotheistic Protestants.

Actually, we aren’t Protestants. We belong to a third group better defined as ‘Restorationists." There are a few Christian groups that belong there; JW’s., SDA,s …a couple of others…my mind just went blank. We don’t share a lot of DOCTRINE, but we do share that one thing that makes us restorationist rather than "Protestant,’ which is that we are NOT “Protesting” Catholicism and attempting to reform the Christian church. We think the whole thing went off the rails and want to restore the original.

You disagree on THIS essential instead of on THAT essential, but since you disagree on an essential, and because of your origin, you get lumped in with the Protestants in my book.

Well…we do not believe in all the essentials to qualify us as Catholics, certainly.

You are not orthodox Christians, definitely, and that should be of some concern to you.

Why? We think you are wrong.

Unless you think orthodoxy is bad…it means “right doctrine.”

That is the greek root, certainly. However, the modern meaning is not 'right doctrine," but 'conformity to established and accepted beliefs." Established and accepted beliefs are not necessarily correct.

Is that a bad thing to Mormons? Having Christ at the center of your belief system is not sufficient to make you Christian.

Well now, that’s where the disagreement lies. Yes, actually, it does. It’s the only thing that does.

cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

The Donatists had Christ at the center of their belief system, but the Bible calls them antichristian because they denied that Christ has come in the flesh, in the substance of humanity.

Really? The bible mentions the Donatists and calls them anti-Christian? That’s interesting. I wasn’t aware that the Donatists showed up until well after Revelation was written. Like…two hundred years after Revelation was written. In fact, I wasn’t aware that the bible called ANYBODY ‘anti-Christian,’ come to think of it…

Mormons are not Christian for a different reason: they deny that Christ is one with the Father in the substance of divinity. So there you go.

Why do you get to say so?

After all, with exactly the same amount of authority behind me, I can declare that Catholics are not Christian because they pray to people other than God for intercession.

…and just as you, absolutely correctly, get to tell me that I don’t get to decide whether you are a Christian or not by whether you agree with my religious beliefs, so say I to you.

What would that accomplish? That’s not even taking a step. That’s just affirming what no one denies.

Nobody denies it, eh? Well, I know about 14,000,000 people who do, for a start.

A real effort at unity and fulfillment of the Great Commission, it is not. By all means, do that. We are trying to get you to do that; Mormonism is just an obstacle in the path to that end, since it denies the union-as-Triunion relationship between the Father and the Son. Hence our attempts to remove that particular obstacle. Moreover, we want to deny that your establishment is a church at all.

huh?

That’s new.

That’s because we LOVE the name of Christ and the significance of the Church, and want it properly respected and rightly used. We don’t want errors proclaimed in the name of Christ and His Church; hence, we don’t want Mormons to remain in Mormonism. We see you proclaiming Christ as the center of your faith while violating His teachings. To us, this is a great sorrow. Wouldn’t you want to stop it as well?

Well, we want to convert you guys, too…but we don’t do it by first denying that you have any chance of a relationship with Christ, are not Christian, and not worthy of fellowship in any way. That’s, quite frankly, counter productive. We DO think that you are in error every inch as much as you do us, but we aren’t kicking YOU out of any chance to work together as Christians.

And yet you boast that you don’t return the favor.

It’s not a boast. It’s simply a statement; like it’s not a boast to tell you that my house has peach stucco on it; it simply is. We don’t insist that Catholics are not Christian, because we understand that you are. We do not insist that you agree with us that you are not Christian before you will discuss things.

Oh, and we don’t publish book titles like ‘What Catholics REally believe’ and 'When Catholics Come to Call," either.

It can only mean to me that Mormonism doesn’t respect the name of Christ enough to refuse it to those who teach error.

No, it means that we understand that WE have no right to refuse the Name of Christ to anyone. Only HE can. It is incredible hubris to make that sort of judgment, y’know.

It would be better, if you truly believe your teachings about Christ, to say that radical deviations from it are not Christian, than to do as you do and promote good-feeling language without the substance, which is proper respect for God’s Name.

Well, if we were to define ‘Christian’ as you do, that is ‘he who believes the correct things about Christ,’ or ‘he who agrees with us about Him,’ then you would be correct. We are the only Christians around.

However, we know very well that nobody has ALL the truth about Christ. We claim to have more than anybody else, of course. We are not so blind as to take upon ourselves the right to deny Christ to anybody who has a personal relationship with Him, or who honestly follows His teachings as they believe them to be.

In fact, I believe that Jesus has some very harsh things to say to those who pull that sort of stuff.

 

[po18guy]

The Hebrews were not always “mono-theistic”…monotheism did not develop and establish itself within Judaism until after the Exile.

YHVH was “one among many” in the first portions of the Hebrew Bible. It was under the ministry of the later prophets that began stressing that “other gods” truly did not exist…in the earlier history of the Hebrew people, YHVH was the “only god with whom they were to deal with”.

We see in Genesis that among Jacob’s household, Rachael I believe, collected the “household gods” and hid them under her skirts and was kept from being searched because she feigned being on her period, which made her unapproachable.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” doesn’t necessarily mean you shall not believe no other gods exist.

YHVH was “one of many”…but the only one they were to worship…YHVH wa a very tribal god…not the ONE GOD who alone exists as we read later in the prophets.

The other gods were false gods. The creation account in Genesis rather clearly reveals only one God for all time. Since He is omnipotent, He can contain three persons within Himself. But, all of the other gods mentioned in scripture are either false, or examples of a modern word used to attempt to describe an ancient understanding. Genesis 6 speaks of the “sons of God”. But yet, God Himself says that Christ is His only Son. How do you reconcile this? Scripture needs proper interpretation to avoid heresy.

 

[Publisher]

The other gods were false gods. The creation account in Genesis rather clearly reveals only one God for all time. Since He is omnipotent, He can contain three persons within Himself. But, all of the other gods mentioned in scripture are either false, or examples of a modern word used to attempt to describe an ancient understanding. Genesis 6 speaks of the “sons of God”. But yet, God Himself says that Christ is His only Son. How do you reconcile this? Scripture needs proper interpretation to avoid heresy.

The Genesis account of creation comes to us in it’s present form AFTER the Exile.

 

[dmar198]

The Genesis account of creation comes to us in it’s present form AFTER the Exile.

The Genesis account of creation, more importantly, is true, and guaranteed to be such by an Author that cannot lie. Therefore, what it says about the origins of Judaism cannot be false. It shows how Judaism was a revealed religion of monotheism. That is the data; it needs no re-tooling.

 

[dmar198]

Does it matter [if he represents it fairly]? Even if he does, what he tells you would have to be confirmed by a Catholic in good standing or by Catholic sources.

Part of representing the Church fairly IS confirming everything by Catholic sources, so that isn’t relevant to whether an ex-Catholic could give an accurate account of Catholic belief. What I wonder is, does the source of an argument matter to the argument’s strength? If you’re thinking logically, it should not; and since the differences between you and us, and between us and Protestants, need to be discussed by arguments, it does not matter an iota whether it is an ex-Mormon or an ex-Catholic who articulates those arguments. What matters is what is said, not who is saying it.

YOU believe that they are heresies. Those who subscribe to them think they are truth.

How enlightening. Dianaaid tells us that people who believe X think X is true. Meanwhile, it does nothing to point out that people disagree with each other on what heresy is. That’s just a useless premise. The conclusion it yields is only that someone is wrong, it’s of no use for telling who. But if we start with the premise that the Church of Christ is infallible, then there’s no problem telling who is in error: those who disagree with her.

Actually, we aren’t Protestants. We belong to a third group better defined as 'Restorationists."

As if the Reformers weren’t Restorationists? Come on, the Protestant claim from the beginning is that the whole thing went off the rails at some point, and then God left it up to a Luther or a Calvin or a Brigham Young to make it all better again.

And THIS time, we have a promise that it won’t fail, right? Because the promise He made LAST time wasn’t enough.

That is the greek root, certainly. However, the modern meaning is not 'right doctrine," but 'conformity to established and accepted beliefs." Established and accepted beliefs are not necessarily correct.

That depends on if the establishment is infallible or not. In this case, that’s the whole debate, since if the Catholic Church is infallible, she can declare what Christianity is, and not risk being wrong.

Well now, that’s where the disagreement lies. Yes, actually, [having Christ at the center of your belief system] does [make you Christian]. It’s the only thing that does.

Says who? Popular opinion? I notice that in neither of your posts did you address my arguments concerning why the Catholic Church has the right to define what Christianity is. I’ll restate it here in the hopes that you’ll make some kind of comment this time.

We say Christian should be defined by the original Church of Christ. That is the Catholic Church. Therefore the Catholic Church has the right to define what Christian means. What say you?

Really? The bible mentions the Donatists and calls them anti-Christian?That’s interesting. I wasn’t aware that the Donatists showed up until well after Revelation was written.

Docetism, not Donatism. Sorry for the spelling error. Docetists certainly were around in the time that the New Testament was written. St. John wrote directly against them when he said that anyone who denies that Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist. (2 John 1:7) The Docetists held that Jesus was only a spirit, not incarnate, and therefore not consubstantial to humanity; Mormons hold that Jesus is not consubstantial to the Father. Your criteria for Christianity (“having Christ as the center of your faith”) would include them. So it’s wrong.

Why do you get to say so ? Me say so? Don’t be silly. I didn’t come up with this. I’m just parroting what the Church of Christ said before me. She told me Mormonism isn’t Christian; Christ told me to listen to the Church in these matters (Matthew 18:17)l and He was specifically talking about the Church’s decisions on who has membership in “the Church.” Of course, if YOU are right, we no longer have to listen to the Church in these matters, because, even though the Church had divine authority, she did not have divine protection; and even though her judgments were binding according to Christ, they were also soon in error according to Joseph Smith, and needed some unknown hero 1830 years later to bring them up to God’s standard.

huh?

That’s new.

Yep. Catholic teaching says to be a Church you need a validly ordained bishop. “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense.” (Dominus Iesus #17)

Well, we want to convert you guys, too…but we don’t do it by first denying that you have any chance of a relationship with Christ, are not Christian, and not worthy of fellowship in any way. That’s, quite frankly, counter productive. We DO think that you are in error every inch as much as you do us, but we aren’t kicking YOU out of any chance to work together as Christians.

Sure, you disagree. And you disagree radically about the essence of what makes a person Christian. We just have the sense to say, the Church gets the win here, being infallible, and therefore you have got wrong the essence of Christianity. But there is a way back: the Eucharist is waiting. The Church, your home, is calling. And the Saints are praying that you’ll pick up one of those books you criticize and see whether a Catholic can fairly represent Mormon teaching and show why we disagree.

God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[dianaiad]

I’m glad we have a chance to examine that claim. “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs.

oops. Stop right there. You are already begging a very large question…

Since the second century at least, it has been tied to the Apostles’ Creed, which Mormons reject.

Actually, we see nothing wrong with the apostle’s creed. (well, except for the 'holy catholic Church…" part).

But then there really is no reference to the Trinity in the apostle’s creed. Are you thinking about the Athanasian creed? Because yeah, we have a problem with that one.

Of course, you DO realize that we believe that the Catholics started going off the doctrinal path somewhat earlier than the 2nd century AD…which is why we are “Restorationists” not 'Protestants," right?

Now they want to redefine Christian to include them.

We contend that you are redefining it to exclude us.

Sorry: words have meanings,

Absolutely. You will find the meanings of words in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of ‘Christian’ doesn’t march with yours.

they cannot be changed merely to be inclusive.

Nor can they be changed merely to be exclusive.

Good question. Let’s compare our answers. We say Christian should be defined by the original Church of Christ.

Well, we say that the TRUTH should be defined by the original Christian church, which, by the way, we contend that Catholics, well…aren’t.

You say, if I am understanding your argument correctly, that it should be defined in a “least common denominator” approach: since everybody agrees that it involves putting Christ at the center of your belief system, but everybody differs on what it means after that, we should go with what everyone agrees on.

Yep. Y’see, I’m an English language major, a teacher and a linguistics person. Word definitions in any language are what everybody understands when they are used…and by that, I mean everybody. There is a reason that “True Scot” is so well known a fallacy, you understand; it’s because so many people seem to have problems with this idea that words are for the purpose of communication, and everybody has to understand the terms if they are going to be at all useful. Thus words like ‘cult’ mean absolutely nothing, ultimately…and “Christian” must ultimately mean that one thing that all those who claim to be Christian have in common.

Everybody else can call themselves ‘TRUE,’ but that’s different.

My idea results in Mormonism being non-Christian.

Yes, your idea does. Your idea is a mistaken one, both taxonomically and etymologically.

Your idea assumes everybody has equal say on the meaning of Christian, and therefore disagreements cancel each other out and we have to go only with what everyone agrees on.

Pretty much, yes.

Your solution is your problem. It is illogical first, and second it won’t work, since it depends on fluctuating human opinion.

Well, language does, y’know. The problem here is that you are confusing the concepts ‘correct’ and ‘saved’ with the classification “Christian.” Don’t do that.

What if someone decides for their own church that “Christian” DOESN’T have to mean putting Christ as center?

Those who make that decision don’t call themselves Christian. they identify themselves by whatever it is they DO put at the center. Your question is like asking what would happen if a Christian converted to Orthodox Judaism and decided he wanted to still call himself a Christian.

Wouldn’t happen, not honestly. At least I don’t know anyone who does. People don’t CALL themselves Christian if they don’t have the teachings of Jesus Christ at the basis of their faith, or at least unless they think they do.

to be continued…boy, we are going to have to select text and do better than this…

 

[dianaiad]

continued…

Then you’re out of that criterion as well.

How so? You haven’t proven your thesis at all.

Alas, let us not found our definitions on human opinion that shifts with every wind of doctrine, but on the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

You are equivocating, Dmar. We are not talking about Truth here, or ‘correct doctrine,’ or 'accuracy in beliefs." If we WERE, then I would be sitting here typing that Mormons are the ONLY Christians. “Christian” is that group of people who all put the teachings of Jesus Christ at the center of their faith, and who claim the name. It doesn’t make them RIGHT. It doesn’t make them SAVED. It doesn’t make them good or holy or even remotely on the right track theologically, but…

it makes them Christians.

But it’s not. It doesn’t accomplish anything to point out that I am not you, and your group is not my group. That defines nothing but the limits of our respective groups; it does nothing to define criteria for genuine Christianity. You can’t criticize people for redefining terms when your own definition depends on how many people agree on what “Christian” means.

As I said; I’m a linguist. Words are my business…and I know what gives any word its definition. Having one group hijack the word ‘Christian’ for the express purpose of excluding everybody else who also believes they are Christian (because, well, Jesus Christ is at the center of their faith and what in the world ELSE would you call them?) is the epitome of fallacious reasoning. It’s illogical…

And though I’ve been enjoying our conversation , I will repeat this; there is only, historically, ever been one reason for one group to decide that another group is 'not Christian." IT’s a particularly nasty one.

Counting the heads will always give fluctuating results depending on who’s voting. I gave you a better one. As Microsoft gets to define Microsoft’s constitution, so the Church gets to define the Church’s constitution.

Absolutely. The Catholic church gets to define what the Catholics must believe in order to be Catholics. But Catholics are only one group of Christians. The largest group, of course, but still not the only one.

You do not get to decide that only Catholics can be ‘true Christians,’ (with a condescending nod to Protestants who agree with you on certain doctrines. You will allow them to enter the fringes of Christianity and bask in the reflected glory…so to speak…)

I own a Ford Escort. I LIKE my Ford Escort. I do not get to decide, because I like my Ford Escort, that only Ford Escorts can be motor vehicles. You do not get to tell me, because you ride a Harley, that Ford Escorts are NOT motor vehicles.

You’re not currently in it. I pray you someday will be. For someone concerned about logical fallacies, you sure didn’t catch your own ad-hominem, did you? Nor did you catch your own inconsistency in applying it. For you have admitted that persecution doesn’t necessarily follow from denying your group Christian status; well, let’s debate results that actually follow from the premises, and not judge a Church by the caliber of its sinners. I’ve submitted my criticisms; I’ll be happy to know of your responses.

God bless!
-Dmar198

What I wrote was that while persecution may not always follow exclusion, (because it’s possible that there might come a time when it doesn’t… persecution has always been PRECEDED by it…that, unfortunately, is historical fact. Frankly, I’ve never seen a case where such exclusion is NOT followed by persecution, if not the sort of physical violence that is historical, certainly by lies, misrepresentation of beliefs, demonstrations, discrimination and outright bigotry.

Catholics should know this better than anybody, because it happens to you guys all the time.

 

[dmar198]

oops. Stop right there. You are already begging a very large question…

Show me where I begged a question and I’ll show you where you threw out a red herring. That “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs should come as no surprise to a wordsmith like yourself. “This belief is Christian, that idea is anti-Christian.” Either quit your field or quit your heresy, for if Christian does not denote a set of beliefs, then it is impossible to call a particular belief Christian. Sorry, but we can prove our case from all fronts in this case: if your communication theory is that usage assigns meaning, then Christian denotes a set of beliefs since the sentences above do that and make sense. If you think meaning can be assigned by an authority, then the authority has assigned it a meaning exclusive to Trinitarians. Either way, Christian excludes you.

I love how you can in one moment claim that “‘Christian’ is that group of people who all put the teachings of Jesus Christ at the center of their faith,” but only after you’ve denied that “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs. Or perhaps you weren’t intending to deny; just throwing out an objection to derail the discussion.

Actually, we see nothing wrong with the apostle’s creed. (well, except for the 'holy catholic Church…" part).

Noted. You just refuse to accept the unity + divinity of the three Persons named there who frame its structure and inform its content. Shrug if you can redefine the Scriptures’ meanings, why not the Creed’s too, right? Soon you’ll be affirming the Catechism as well, just with that added Mormon twist.

Are you thinking about the Athanasian creed? Because yeah, we have a problem with that one.

Of course, you DO realize that we believe that the Catholics started going off the doctrinal path somewhat earlier than the 2nd century AD

Awwww…JUST when I thought you were going to allow a discussion about whether the Athanasian Creed is constitutional to Christianity, you throw out the Great Invisible Apostasy to ruin the game before it starts. Oh, well. We’ll keep at it 'til we find something.

…which is why we are “Restorationists” not 'Protestants," right?

I wonder how you can define “Protestants” in a way that doesn’t include “Restorationists.” Restorationism is just a cheap imitation of the Reformation. It’s a modern movement to proclaim (1) Hell’s victory over the Church when it was Catholic and (2) some new prophetic phoenix to pick things up from the ashes.

We contend that you are redefining it to exclude us.

You don’t say? Wow, you’re just full of insight tonight, aren’t you?

You come on the scene 1830 years after the true Church was established and pipe up to tell it it’s too innovative. One thing I’d love, if you ever have the time, is to tell me when you think the Catholic Church WAS started. You’ve ruled out ~30 A.D. since you say we weren’t the original Church. Then you rule out the second century, saying we were already wrong before that. So it had to be between 30 and 100 A.D…some time during the Apostles’ lifetimes, but of course they didn’t rebuke this new Church and its teachings they’d never heard of. No wonder all the followers of the Apostles got the impression that this sect (founded during the Apostles’ lifetimes) was the true Church, and joined it, with the Apostles standing guard. And you have the gaul to do otherwise, disapproving of the Church they tacitly approved. Sigh. I’ll have to post more after the weekend. I’ve got a big weekend starting tomorrow and can’t go on with this. But pick up a book and read it, Diana, I recommend “When Mormons Come Calling,” since you’ve already made mention of it once.

See you later, and God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[dianaiad]

Show me where I begged a question and I’ll show you where you threw out a red herring. That “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs should come as no surprise to a wordsmith like yourself. “This belief is Christian, that idea is anti-Christian.”

The question begged is…what set of beliefs and who gets to decide what they are? Remember, you claim that Catholicism gets to do that, and I don’t think so. Therefore it’s not a premise that we can both agree to.

Either quit your field or quit your heresy, for if Christian does not denote a set of beliefs, then it is impossible to call a particular belief Christian. Sorry, but we can prove our case from all fronts in this case: if your communication theory is that usage assigns meaning, then Christian denotes a set of beliefs since the sentences above do that and make sense. If you think meaning can be assigned by an authority, then the authority has assigned it a meaning exclusive to Trinitarians. Either way, Christian excludes you.

Again; who gets to define the beliefs that comprise “Christian,” And what ‘authority’ are you talking about?

You keep insisting that Catholicism alone gets to define the beliefs, and is the authority, and the entire question being begged her is whether or not that is true. I don’t think it is. Since I do not, we can’t use that as a premise to base a discussion upon.

I love how you can in one moment claim that “‘Christian’ is that group of people who all put the teachings of Jesus Christ at the center of their faith,” but only after you’ve denied that “Christian” denotes a set of beliefs

The problem is, I didn’t deny that. You are misrepresenting my position…the question being begged is what set of beliefs and who gets to decide upon them. Your premise is that you get to do both, and since I don’t agree, well…that’s a problem.

. Or perhaps you weren’t intending to deny; just throwing out an objection to derail the discussion. Noted. You just refuse to accept the unity + divinity of the three Persons named there who frame its structure and inform its content.

You are quite right. I am not a Trinitaran. I am, however, Christian. Again, you are begging the question…and you keep insisting that I agree with you that Christian = Trinitarian because Catholics say so.

Hello…I’m not a Catholic. I don’t agree with Catholicism. I don’t think you are correct about quite a few things; please tell me why in the world I would suddenly accept THEIR judgment of my Christianity?

 

[dianaiad]

Shrug if you can redefine the Scriptures’ meanings, why not the Creed’s too, right? Soon you’ll be affirming the Catechism as well, just with that added Mormon twist. Awwww…JUST when I thought you were going to allow a discussion about whether the Athanasian Creed is constitutional to Christianity, you throw out the Great Invisible Apostasy to ruin the game before it starts. Oh, well. We’ll keep at it 'til we find something. I wonder how you can define “Protestants” in a way that doesn’t include “Restorationists.” Restorationism is just a cheap imitation of the Reformation. It’s a modern movement to proclaim (1) Hell’s victory over the Church when it was Catholic and (2) some new prophetic phoenix to pick things up from the ashes. You don’t say? Wow, you’re just full of insight tonight, aren’t you?

Is there some reason you are suddenly devolving to sarcasm and ad hominem, or do you have a point to make?

I think that the basic difference between the Restorationists and classical Protestantism is this: All but one of the Restorationist groups claim to have a leader who recieved divine revelation; that divine revelation was to restore the original church that Jesus Himself founded. The one exception to this was a strict sola scripturian group…

Classic protestantism, however, did not claim any sort of divine public revelation. Luther, Calvin and their peers were trying to ‘reform’ Catholicism and turn mother church back to better days and ways. Restorationists, on the other hand, didn’t think that was possible.

It’s not a huge deal, y’know. Remember, while we belong in that “Restorationist” catagory, we think all the OTHER members of that category are at least as wierd as you think we are. If you want to continue to think of us as “Protestant,” feel free. It’s a little misleading, though, since we weren’t actually protesting anything, or attempting to reform anything. We just started over.

You come on the scene 1830 years after the true Church was established and pipe up to tell it it’s too innovative.

“Innovative?”

No, I don’t think that word was used often. The word is ‘apostasy.’

One thing I’d love, if you ever have the time, is to tell me when you think the Catholic Church WAS started. You’ve ruled out ~30 A.D. since you say we weren’t the original Church. Then you rule out the second century, saying we were already wrong before that. So it had to be between 30 and 100 A.D…some time during the Apostles’ lifetimes, but of course they didn’t rebuke this new Church and its teachings they’d never heard of.

We count it pretty much from the death of the last apostle. At least, that’s when we start counting the apostasy officially (it was, of course, beginning to happen earlier…and if you don’t think so, you haven’t read most of the letters in the NT.)

No wonder all the followers of the Apostles got the impression that this sect (founded during the Apostles’ lifetimes) was the true Church, and joined it, with the Apostles standing guard. And you have the gaul to do otherwise, disapproving of the Church they tacitly approved. Sigh. I’ll have to post more after the weekend. I’ve got a big weekend starting tomorrow and can’t go on with this. But pick up a book and read it, Diana, I recommend “When Mormons Come Calling,” since you’ve already made mention of it once.

See you later, and God bless!
-Dmar198

I’d rather study what my own faith believes from those who actually know what those beliefs are, thank you.

Just as I wouldn’t go to Jack Chick to find out how to ‘witness to Catholics,’ or to CARM to find out what Catholics REALLY believe, I strongly recommend that you get your information about LDS doctrine from LDS sources.

I have to tell you that those books on the sidebar absolutely guarantee that I will NEVER become a Catholic. .

It’s like this: the guy with the flashlight doesn’t need to blow out the candle lighting the wrong way in order to outshine it. Moreover, the time he takes to blow the candle out is time he is NOT showing the correct path. Trust me on this; if what you have is True, and good, and what God wants, you don’t have to write anti-anything else in order to make what you have look better.

…so when I see this stuff, I have to think that the reason people write it is because they don’t have faith enough in their own beliefs to simply let others get a good look. If YOU don’t have enough faith to do that, then why should I bother?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Absolutely. The Catholic church gets to define what the Catholics must believe in order to be Catholics. But Catholics are only one group of Christians. The largest group, of course, but still not the only one.

Yes, the Catholic Church gets to define what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholics, and the Catholic Church also gets to define how it sees itself into other churches and religions, especially since it claims to be the original Church established by Christ. That’s what we’re talking about, the Catholic view.

You do not get to decide that only Catholics can be ‘true Christians,’ (with a condescending nod to Protestants who agree with you on certain doctrines. You will allow them to enter the fringes of Christianity and bask in the reflected glory…so to speak…)

A “condescending nod to Protestants”? What are you talking about, and I hope that you are not mocking Catholic beliefs here.

We get to decide how Catholics view ourselves and others. You don’t get to decide our worldview. Again, we come back to the issue of letting Catholics define Catholic beliefs and Mormons define Mormon beliefs, that you are fond of bringing up.

Catholics believe that only Catholics have the fullness of the Truth, being the Church established by Jesus Christ with the entire Deposit of Faith, sacraments, and holy orders. The Catholic Church then defines how it sees other churches and religions that have sprung up since it was established, especially in relation to how it receives members of such churches and religions into full communion with the Church.

The funny thing is that you claim that the Catholic Church gives a “condescending nod to Protestants”, when we accept the validity of Protestant baptisms, while your church may allow all them to call themselves Christians, yet accepts no baptisms but its own. So you may take pride in your belief that anyone can be Christian that calls themselves one (and has faith in Jesus Christ, despite not agreeing on who He actually is), but that really has no eternal significance, since that same Christian cannot receive eternal life and live in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son without accepting Mormonism to be true.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

We aren’t Catholic, sir. Nor do we claim to be so. We claim to belong to the larger Christian world.

Obviously, I know what you claim. I am clearly talking about how Catholics view Mormonism, as well as other non-Catholic churches and religions.

Who said that “Christian” = “Trinitarian?” Who gets to say so?

I am clearly talking about how Catholics view the matter. As I already said, I know that you do not agree, however I am presenting the way that Catholics view the matter, not what Mormons think about it.

 

[swariffin]

Well, the claim is that Judaism draws some of its beliefs from polytheistic cults. This is probably untrue, as it would be the subject of huge discussion among Jewish and Christian scholars alike, but I want to know why the video is wrong and how to explain to others who fall for this kind of ilk.

I do not mean that Judaism draw some of its beliefs from polytheistic cults. I do mean that Judaism came after seeing that polytheistic God could not possibly true logically. Rather than having a supreme God who is in control of many lesser Gods (whom themselves control many separate but limited things), it is more logical to have one supreme God who controls everything.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, the Catholic Church gets to define what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholics, and the Catholic Church also gets to define how it sees itself into other churches and religions, especially since it claims to be the original Church established by Christ. That’s what we’re talking about, the Catholic view.

I think that it has been established rather well that CATHOLICS believe that only Catholics (and certain Protestants who don’t protest the wrong stuff) are Christians. What is at issue here is whether those of us folk who Cahtolics have shoved out of the Christian fold have to accept it as so.

Here’s the thing about debates; they generally are about topics with more than one side. Your side is that Catholicism gets to define what “Christian” means. My side is that no, it does not. Therefore beginning with the premise that it DOES, well…doesn’t work.

A “condescending nod to Protestants”? What are you talking about, and I hope that you are not mocking Catholic beliefs here.

I have never, EVER, mocked Catholic beliefs. Feel quite free to go through every one of my posts on this forum and find a single post that mocked your beliefs OR Catholics as believers. I have sometimes disagreed with them. I have, at times, defended them against unfair attacks. I have never, ever, mocked them.

Which is considerably more than I can say for many of the posters here in regard to MY beliefs, so…I strongly recommend that nobody go there.

We get to decide how Catholics view ourselves and others.

Of course you do. I have never argued that. The problem is, y’all seem to think you get to decide how WE have to view ourselves, as well. That is the situation I am addressing. When the premise of a discussion is that Catholics get to decide whether Mormons are Christian or not, and the rest of the converstion hinges upon the Mormon accepting that, and denying their own Christianity, it becomes a problem.

You don’t get to decide our worldview. Again, we come back to the issue of letting Catholics define Catholic beliefs and Mormons define Mormon beliefs, that you are fond of bringing up.

Ah, no, you don’t. Show me anywhere in my extensive posting history that claims that you don’t get to decide your worldview, or that you don’t get to define Catholic beliefs. Please. I will gladly wait for you to do so.

The question here is that y’all seem to want to define MY worldview. That is, it’s not about whether YOU believe I am a Christian. It’s about this incessant insistance that I have to agree that I am not before I can enter into a debate in which the matter, well…matters.

As well, arguing that you are wrong to believe that Mormons are not Christian isn’t telling you that Catholics don’t get to define Catholic beliefs or world view, y’know. After all, I’m certain that you aren’t going to tell me that because you think my beliefs are incorrect that I don’t get to decide what those beliefs actually are, right?

 

[dianaiad]

Catholics believe that only Catholics have the fullness of the Truth, being the Church established by Jesus Christ with the entire Deposit of Faith, sacraments, and holy orders. The Catholic Church then defines how it sees other churches and religions that have sprung up since it was established, especially in relation to how it receives members of such churches and religions into full communion with the Church.

Of course you do, and I have never argued that. Again, the problem doesn’t lie there. The problem lies, for me, in those conversations where the Catholic expects me to take that position as a given; not that this is what Catholics believe of themselves, but that it is a given that I must think so, as well.

Since I am NOT Catholic, isn’t it illogical to expect me to agree to a ‘given’ that Catholicism gets to define my Christianity—for ME? It’s not whether YOU think I’m a Christian. It’s about whether you have the right to make me agree that I am not. I can’t do that, and I can’t honestly have a debate in which my non-Christianity has to be a given…or in which the ‘given’ is that Catholicism is the arbitor of all things Christian.

Especially when the debate is about whether the Catholic definition of “Christian” is correct. The whole thing then becomes extremely circular…and utterly frustrating.

The funny thing is that you claim that the Catholic Church gives a “condescending nod to Protestants”, when we accept the validity of Protestant baptisms, while your church may allow all them to call themselves Christians, yet accepts no baptisms but its own.

Uh…we don’t ‘allow’ anything. We don’t have the right to decide, and there lies the difference, I think, between the two worldviews. Christians are Christian…and frankly, nobody really gets a say in the Christianity of any person except that person…and Christ Himself. You and I simply *do not get votes in the matter. *

As to baptisms: it’s true. we do not believe that any baptism performed by someone not having authority to do so is valid, and of course we don’t believe any priesthood but ours is valid. It has long been a suspicion of many Mormons that the reason that the Catholic church came out and decided that our baptisms were no good (even though the wording of them exactly conforms to Catholic requirements for that) is because we declared that yours weren’t, first…a quid pro quo sort of thing. The only reason it took y’all so long to make that declaration is that we finally a little too big, and too public, to ignore.

Why not?

It’s no sillier a notion than the idea that we gave blacks the priesthood because we were afraid of the IRS, is it?

Our view of what baptism is, and who should BE baptised, however, is a bit different from yours, and in OUR world view is that one need not be baptised to be a Christian. One should have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in order to be one, or at least claim one does.

As well, remember that, unlike Catholicism, we do believe that everybody who has ever been born on the planet, or ever WILL be born on the planet, will have an opportunity to be baptised properly. In other words, it’s not as if we are consigning anybody to hell because of where, when or in what circumstances they were born.

So you may take pride

I don’t ‘take pride’ in it. It simply is. Just like I don’t ‘take pride’ in my belief that I’m wearing a pink knit shirt. I’m simply wearing one.

in your belief that anyone can be Christian that calls themselves one (and has faith in Jesus Christ, despite not agreeing on who He actually is), but that really has no eternal significance, since that same Christian cannot receive eternal life and live in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son without accepting Mormonism to be true.

As you believe that, in order to be saved, people must accept a certain set of beliefs and ideas that you count important. The difference between us is this: we beleive that everybody will get the chance to learn and accept. You don’t.

So, for pure fairness, I’ll go with mine. By the way, you might want to remind yourself that our view of what heaven is differs from yours, as well, in this: every description of heaven I have ever heard from Catholics and Protestants seems to fit the place WE believe pretty much everybody will go to anyway. I believe that Joseph Smith once likened even the Telestial Kingdom (that heaven which most of you would consign those worthy of your hell to) to be so much better than here that if we could see even a glimpse of it, we would instantly commit suicide to go there.

For us, “hell” is something measured in distance from God…and the purest of hells is reserved for those who knowingly deny the Holy Ghost. Emphasis upon ‘knowingly.’

 

[dianaiad]

Obviously, I know what you claim. I am clearly talking about how Catholics view Mormonism, as well as other non-Catholic churches and religions.

I am clearly talking about how Catholics view the matter. As I already said, I know that you do not agree, however I am presenting the way that Catholics view the matter, not what Mormons think about it.

I think that you are misconstruing the focus of the debate. I"m not claiming that you can’t decide for your own world view what Christianity is and who qualifies. I am making two points:

1. You don’t get to decide that FOR ME and force me to agree before we can have a debate on the topic, and
2. Beginning a conversation about whether Mormons are Christians with the ‘given’ that Catholics get to decide the Christianity of everybody in the Christian world is an incredibly circular argument, since of course Catholics have decided that we aren’t.

It is, in fact, a classic example of begging the question.

Finally, arguing that one of your positions is incorrect is in no way telling you that you have no right to determine what those positions actually are. It isn’t exactly as if I’m wrong about the fact that you DO deny that Mormons are Christians. I just happen to believe that you are wrong about that.