D
dianaiad
Guest
(sigh) I’m sorry, and utterly embarrassed, given that though my ancestors have been in the USA for close to 350 years, they pretty much all came from Scotland.
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
I believe you have just proven my point, Rebecca.
Actually…just look in any dictionary. You won’t find a one that includes all those extras you tack on to the definition in any of 'em.
The thing is, a word might mean something very special to the person using it–something very different from the dictionary definition, and that’s fine. Unfortunately, unless everybody else agrees with that definition, it is useless as a communication tool.
The really ironic thing about this is that I’ve met precious few Protestants who admit that Catholics are Christians.
You realize, don’t you, why this intense need to refuse Mormons membership in the club exists? For the same reason Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian, or that Christian Scientists are not, or any number of other folk are not; he who you would persecute you must first make ‘other.’ Look at your own very long history, where the persecution is done both by, and against, Catholics. It’s one of the few things that ALWAYS happens.
After all, killing another Christian because you don’t like his doctrines is just plain rude.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The dictionary does not define my religious beliefs.
The really ironic thing about his is that Protestants are split offs from Catholicism. If we aren’t Christian, neither are they.
Are there any of these Protestants that view Mormonism as a valid Christian religion?
Christianity is not a club.
Well, this is not why Mormons are not Christian, It is what you believe. Three separate gods, who are but a small number amoung many. Pre-existence. God as the literal father of Jesus. God as a man, who is not infinite in nature. etc etc These are entirely made up beliefs, outside of Christianity. While at the same time, Mormons reject Christian belief.
Who’s killing anyone?
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Well, my question was in fact directed to Mormons, though you are welcome to reply. The topic of the thread arranges Mormons to Muslims; so my primary concern is as to what the Mormons think they are. If they say that they are not Muslims and they are Christians; for the purposes of this thread I would accept that, though the Christians may accept it or not.
The Christians have their own preferences. Please don’t mind; in my opinion there are no “true Christians” in Christians, as they only follow Paul , and Jesus only in name not in essence and reality.
Do Mormons say they are Christians or not? From this standpoint my research would advance with the Mormons.
I love Jesus and Mary as I love Buddha and Krishna
Thanks
D
dianaiad
Guest
No. It defines WORDS. Like 'Christian."
I love irony…and you are quite right.
A few, I imagine. The Baptists don’t, certainly; quite a few others.
Well…sorta it is. It is a classification of the basis of a belief system. Not everybody in it is RIGHT, but everybody in it bases their beliefs upon their ideas of what Jesus taught. What else are you going to call someone whose belief system is based around that?
Think of it as a classification, not a stamp of approval.
…and you keep committing the same fallacy; I’m not going to address the inaccuracies of the above description of my beliefs. I am going to say that they are irrelevant. I could believe that Jesus said to pick up snakes and dance with them. I could believe that Jesus said that dancing is verbotten. I could be a modalist, where one God simply chooses to wear different masks. I could believe that Jesus was not divine (though that one *might *be problematic…) but that His teachings were good ones to follow. I might believe that one should eschew all medical aid, for any reason. I might believe that all modern conveniences past the water wheel are sinful. I might believe in all manner of different levels of trinitarianism. I might believe that God the Father is God–and that Jesus Christ, His Son, while He is the Messiah and the Savior, is nevertheless not God. I might believe that a man could have many wives. I might believe that a man should have none. I might believe…well, there are any number of variations of Christian belief–and all fall under the banner ‘Christian,’ because every single one of them is based, first, on the teachings of one Jesus Christ as the believer thinks they are.
You don’t read the news much, do you? That’s not only an historical fact, it’s a PRESENT one. It is not confined to Christians going after other Christians. It applies to all groups and peoples; he who one would persecute, one must first make ‘other.’
…and you might want to roll your eyes at someone who has NOT been shot at because of her religion–or who has not had great grandparents murdered because of it. You, a Catholic, should know better. Catholics have had 1500 years of history of proving the truth of this statement, both on the giving and the receiving end of it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ad Populum is a fallacy. If we are going to put the question of who is, and who is not, Christian to a vote, we have a problem; first, (except of course for the Mormons,) nobody would vote for anybody who didn’t agree with them regarding their personal pet doctrines. Now, the Catholics would have the majority vote in Christianity, but what about the rest of the planet? They use the word too. 
They might just do as Pope Innocent III did with the Albigensians, and say “Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset” (Kill them all, God will know His own.)
Metaphorically, of course.
Come to think of it, give me one good reason why I, who consider myself very much a Christian, should accept your (or anybody else’s, for that matter) judgment that I’m not? After all, I don’t think you are correct about those issues that divide us.
I figure that if “Christian” does mean “correct about what Christ taught” and “saved,” then none of us have a vote in that anyway. Only Christ does, and I’m not Him.
Which is why I do NOT say “if only one of us can be Christian, then I am and you are not.” If you say you are, then you are–until Christ Himself says you aren’t. Personally. To you.
You may be a bad Christian; an evil Christian; completely wrongheaded and nutty about your beliefs Christian–but Christian, non-the-less.
They might just do as Pope Innocent III did with the Albigensians, and say “Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset” (Kill them all, God will know His own.)
Metaphorically, of course.
Come to think of it, give me one good reason why I, who consider myself very much a Christian, should accept your (or anybody else’s, for that matter) judgment that I’m not? After all, I don’t think you are correct about those issues that divide us.
I figure that if “Christian” does mean “correct about what Christ taught” and “saved,” then none of us have a vote in that anyway. Only Christ does, and I’m not Him.
Which is why I do NOT say “if only one of us can be Christian, then I am and you are not.” If you say you are, then you are–until Christ Himself says you aren’t. Personally. To you.
You may be a bad Christian; an evil Christian; completely wrongheaded and nutty about your beliefs Christian–but Christian, non-the-less.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Thank you.
As it happens, I am LDS. (That’s the largest group of Mormons; lots of different little Mormon groups out there)(grin) and we have yet another layer of what Christians must believe in order to be Christians…
We do claim to be Christian. We do not claim the ‘once saved, always saved’ doctrine that the Protestants insist goes along with that, and our brand of trinitarianism is almost not trinitarianism at all, which disqualifies us in the eyes of a bunch of others. We are not modalists, which disqualifies us in the eyes of a few more. On the other hand, each one of those groups throws the others under the metaphorical ‘not Christian’ bus, so what am I supposed to do with it?
Fluff it. I’m a Christian, a Mormon, and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in hierarchical classification order, top down.
S
swariffin
Guest
If there is no believe in permitted lying in Mormonism, than let it be that way. It is good for you, and I am very happy to hear that. You also believe in the bible that Jesus said that the devil is the father of all lies. BTW, some prophets did committed sin too, and I agree with you.
S
swariffin
Guest
That is a great thing to say. My reason of being here actually not to compare my religion against other. I mainly argue against somebody from another religion who claim false things about my religion but unable to provide any clue other than from their own holy book, or from other spectacular sources not even supported by their own holy book.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the cross to make an atonement for the sins of the world, rose again (was resurrected) three days later, and ascended to heaven.
zerinus
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have spent a great many years…not as an apologist, because that’s too lofty a title…but as a sort of, I dunno, proof checker, I guess. I don’t particularly care whether anybody else agrees with what I believe. I simply would like to see, when disagreements arise, that whoever is arguing with me is actually contending with what I truly believe, not with some strawman invented by an enemy.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. Mormons also consider historical Christianity to be Apostate.
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
you are free to reply however you wish.
the versions are significant in their variance of WHAT happened as well as WHEN. it appears as embellished as a paul dunn talk. guess boyd k packer was right when said some things that are true aren’t very useful.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t think that those prophets who told less than the full truth were sinning. In the case of 1 Samuel 16:2, for example, it was God Himself who commanded him not to tell the full story. We also have modern revelation which informs us that when Abraham didn’t tell the full truth, that was also done by the commandment of God. But we don’t have any theological principle like Tqiyya in Islam, which says it is okay no to tell the truth if it is expedient not to do so.
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
and you think that menas what?
like i said, many felt threatened by the Mormon aggression then
no i do not JS should have been killed, especially not by vigialntes. HOWEVER…i do believe he was trying to coverup his disgusting and scandalous behavior.
don’t blame the messenger. you can easily verify any of the facts. i am ot worried about my credibility in the least. william laws interview is easily veririfed as is the copy of the expositor. the question is what in there is truth?
and why was that? JS was certainly trying to kill william and doing everything he could to discredit him so that the public woldn’t listen to him. Law had sufficient evidence against JS to be quite a threat to his power base.
i am aware of all. Law was at one time JS right hand man and believed in him. i completely understand his turn when he discovered what was really going on. i have read the expositor. have you?
a sentiment i can understand as JS had implemented a totalitarian regime that was dangerous.
and Rigdon had whipped up war sentiment on his own as well. Early mormomns were very disdainful of “gentile law” and thought themselves to be building up a literal kingdom.
that’s because you stick to the revisionist faith promoting versions in the gospel doctrine manual. try looking at all available sources on JS tarring and feathering incident. that certainly didn’t happen the way it is portrayed in seminary.
well here is where you establish your “wiggle room”. anyone who acted against the LDS leaders was an “apostate” so semantically no mormons were involved. i still claim the same thing though. disgruntled mormons, apostates, whatever you want to call them, people who felt betrayed and deceived by JS turned against him. why did they do that? do their claims have any validity? are we going to just wave off JS abuses as him being “human”?
M
majick275
Guest
continued
if you want to claim many mormons are good people and do good things i will agree with you. if you want to claim that the current LDS church is different than the original, i am in agreement with that too even to the point of many controversial teachings being “discarded”. I still think the LDs church though to be a dangerous cult of deception that christians should be wary of.
what about his being a “prophet” do you find so successful? i see him as little different than jones or koresh.
depends on how you define bias. law was JS counselor. he was in a position to know and that knowledge caused him to turn away… seemed to be a common problem for JS. i hardly think Law most responsible for JS death. your own bias is not insignificant. you have yet to present any evidence at all. merely your own claims. i could just read jeff lindsay for that.
of course the sites aren’t authoritative. the documents are. you can easily see if the docujents were forged or fake… you wil find they are not. i am not asking you to accept teh commentary or analysis of those sites, merely the documents themselves.
i think it important to look at anticatholic claims. then you can look at why they think those claims true. you can view all the facts and see the truth. catholicism can withstand a critical eye. I would never try to tell you that we had never had bad popes or catholic leaders who did bad things.I CAN tell you that those popes, bishops, etc. never changed catholic dogma to justify their actions. they made some effort to hide them because they knew they were wrong. rudeness is a subjective thing. the LDS scriptures claiming our creeds to be an abomination is extremely offensive to me as was the temple ceremony portrayal of the sectarian minister and lucifers comments about priests and popes.
if you want to claim many mormons are good people and do good things i will agree with you. if you want to claim that the current LDS church is different than the original, i am in agreement with that too even to the point of many controversial teachings being “discarded”. I still think the LDs church though to be a dangerous cult of deception that christians should be wary of.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This relativism is the fallacy. Truth is not one thing here and another thing there and yet another thing over there. There is one truth.
Many secular humanists hold a view that Jesus may or may not have been a historical figure. But some view His existence as believable and His teachings as revolutionary and very humanists. They incorporate some of what He taught into their lives.
Would you call a secular humanist Christian?
Well, you are a drama queen. I’m talking about this forum. Mormons always get this persecution thing going, when we have nothing but words on a screen.
I am from a LDS family, 5th generation, polygamists, direct descendant of people who were born in NY, Kirtland, Nauvoo and who left their families orphaned (several wives and children) when they died on the trail to UT.
I am also a direct descedent of St. Thomas More.
So you can kill the drama. It isn’t relative to who is Christian or not.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Originally Posted by dianaiad
The “Carthage Greys,” who, when Joseph was placed in Carthage jail, were supposed to have protected him. An odd choice, one would think, given that when Joseph was paraded through town toward the jail, they all threw their arms on the ground in protest of Mormons.
The reality here is that William Law profited from Joseph Smith, became his enemy, attempted to kill him, and only after he was stopped from doing that did he publish the Expositor. That rather diminishes the credibility of the rhetoric in it as far as I am concerned.
I was not told that the accusation of unwanted sexual advances were really a coverup for a bunch of vigilantes who were mad at Joseph over the bank failure–one that Joseph lost all HIS money in as well.
I was told, however, that the mob dragged Joseph out in the middle of the night, leaving the door open so that the winter air got in and chilled his son who had the measles–who then died of pneumonia and hyperthermia.
So you are quite right. the real story isn’t what is told to seminary students. The real story is much worse.
Tell me.
What sort of justice is it that decrees tar and feathering (believe me, such a thing is not funny, involving as it does a substance that must be scraped off flesh with third degree burns) castration and the death of an innocent child as proper punishment? What sort of justice is it that decides that simply suing, or bringing charges against, Joseph isn’t sufficient–but that he must be accused of sexual misconduct by a non-existent man in order to excuse the actions taken in the middle of the bloody night?
I’m sorry, but I have real problems with people who excuse stuff like this, or make it seem justified.
The “Carthage Greys,” who, when Joseph was placed in Carthage jail, were supposed to have protected him. An odd choice, one would think, given that when Joseph was paraded through town toward the jail, they all threw their arms on the ground in protest of Mormons.
It means that I think it was an odd choice to pick protectors from a group that was inimical to Mormons, to the point that they threw down their weapons rather than defend him against people protesting him in the streets. A more suspicious person than a turnip might wonder about the motive behind that choice.
That you think this justifies their behavior is interesting. I’ll remember that when the MMM comes up.
That William Law wrote the Expositor isn’t in question. That you presented him as Joseph Smith’s counselor and friend IS; by doing so, and sending us to a site that is blatantly anti-Mormon and is proud of it, you are being considerably more than ‘the messenger.’ you are like the herald that arrives under color of a truce flag, and pulls out the sword.diana:
don’t blame the messenger. you can easily verify any of the facts. i am ot worried about my credibility in the least. william laws interview is easily veririfed as is the copy of the expositor. the question is what in there is truth?
The reality here is that William Law profited from Joseph Smith, became his enemy, attempted to kill him, and only after he was stopped from doing that did he publish the Expositor. That rather diminishes the credibility of the rhetoric in it as far as I am concerned.
SAY WHAT? WHERE is there any evidence of any sort that has Joseph attempting to kill William Law? Great googly moogly; Joseph even offered to pay for the damages to the printing press!!! (shaking head…)
I’ll grant you the attempt to discredit him.
Asked and answered. Several times. Yes, I have.
You are quite right. It is not taught in seminary that he was supposed to be castrated as well as tarred and feathered, but the good Dr. Dennison backed out when the time came. They forgot to tell me that the attackers tried to force acid down his throat, and that they had succeeded in doing so to Sydney Rigdon–nearly killing him and causing permanent brain damage. They didn’t tell me in Seminary that the “reason” for doing this was that Joseph had, evidently, 'made sexual advances" to a seventeen year old girl–who, even though she grew up, was sealed (married) to Joseph and later and left the church, was quite clear that no such thing ever happened. As well, the accusation was supposed to have been made by the brother of one of the attackers–who happened to be an only child.
I was not told that the accusation of unwanted sexual advances were really a coverup for a bunch of vigilantes who were mad at Joseph over the bank failure–one that Joseph lost all HIS money in as well.
I was told, however, that the mob dragged Joseph out in the middle of the night, leaving the door open so that the winter air got in and chilled his son who had the measles–who then died of pneumonia and hyperthermia.
So you are quite right. the real story isn’t what is told to seminary students. The real story is much worse.
Actually, many, but by no means all, of his attackers that night were disaffected Mormons, really upset about the bank. They didn’t stay Mormons. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that their actions that night could be considered their resignation letters, don’t you?
His bank failed. A great many Mormons, including him, lost a great deal of money. He was not a very good banker.
Tell me.
What sort of justice is it that decrees tar and feathering (believe me, such a thing is not funny, involving as it does a substance that must be scraped off flesh with third degree burns) castration and the death of an innocent child as proper punishment? What sort of justice is it that decides that simply suing, or bringing charges against, Joseph isn’t sufficient–but that he must be accused of sexual misconduct by a non-existent man in order to excuse the actions taken in the middle of the bloody night?
I’m sorry, but I have real problems with people who excuse stuff like this, or make it seem justified.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Good for you and welcome again!
This group? Well, I can tell that it contains some truly opinionated people, who can express those opinions with conviction and strength–and who would keep me on my toes.
So yeah. I still feel that way. Mostly.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, Joseph didn’t murder all his followers, and he was a great deal more successful than Koresh. Not that this matters…I don’t really care whether you think he was a prophet or not, frankly. As to his being successful, well…
That’s a pretty silly observation, given everything, don’t you think? Whatever you may believe about the doctrine, you have to admit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is SUCCESSFUL.
Not at the time he attempted to kill Joseph, and not at the time he wrote the Expositor–and you presented his writings as if he were such at the time. Isn’t that a little like allowing Judas to testify against Jesus because he was an apostle? The bias is pretty obvious.
I didn’t say that. I said that he did the most of any single person to ensure it. There is a difference.
Of course I am biased. I see all this stuff through the lens of my own belief. However, I still see all this stuff. …and what do you mean I haven’t presented any evidence? I gave you cites, and history…good grief.
Hey. Don’t diss Jeff Lindsay! He makes awesome wood carvings.
AND he presents plenty of cites for his claims, too.
Where did I deny the text of the Expositor? I am pointing out that A: you were presenting Law as something he was not in order to lend credibility to his claims, and B; I showed you where his claims are less than credible, given his attempt to murder Joseph.
I don’t look at anti-catholic stuff. I have no way of dealing with it properly…except that if their accuracy about Catholics is at the same level as their accuracy regarding Mormonism, then they are pure wastes of paper, bandwidth and time.
Thank you, by the way, for quoting the only ‘anti’ stuff that the church has ever written…considerably over a hundred years old and not aimed at any one specific group. Interesting, isn’t it, that you have to go back that far to find something to offend you?
I’m not claiming anything. I am wondering what the ‘danger’ is, though. I mean, we don’t go out killing people, or kidnapping them. We feed them, though–and given that we work with Catholic Charities a LOT, the Catholics know about that very well.
True, if we grow much bigger we might put a crimp in the wine and whiskey production…but then drunk driving arrests might go down a little. Tobacco farmers will have to grow something else. We will see a wild and wooly influx of community theater, and “Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat” will be running through the heads of everybody on the planet. Folkdancers will wander the streets. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will take over the air waves, and (gasp) Marie Osmond might actually WIN 'Dancing with the Stars" next time.
Heaven preserve the lot of us.
- Status