LDS, Christians, and Politics

[John-in-KC]

trev: Sorry. I'll let you read BOM and decide for yourself. My organizational church has enough problems on this earth. I don't need to take on their problems.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Pack,

 

I propose that your question, while a good one, is impossible to answer, at this point in time.

 

It's been a bit over 2,000 years and I do not believe that we even have a handle yet on what it means to be Christian, let alone try to determine if a church that follows one set of doctrines is any more or less Christian than any other churches.

 

There are still people out there that don't believe Catholics are Christians (despite one of their most iconic images being a crucified Christ). There are churches that still preach that their church is the one and true Christian church and that all other churches are not Christian. There are people/churches within denominations that claim other people/churches within the same denomination are not Christian. There are people in single churches that claim that people that go to the same church aren't neccessarily Christian.

 

There are people who believe that to be Christian, one must believe in the divinity of Christ, that Christ was the physical manifestation of God. There are others who believe that one doesn't need to believe in the divinity of Christ to be Christian, that one only needs to follow the teachings of Christ.

 

As long as there is no universal recognition of what it eans to be Christian, then no answer to the question can be objective - they will all be subject to ones interpretation of what it means to be Christian - and therefore, no answer is any more, or any less, authoritative than the other.

 

Calico

[Gold Winger]

"The gold tablets that their are no scriptural references to unlike the 10 Commandments or the writings of Paul are connoctions of the mind of a great con man named Joseph Smith. "

 

Huh! How could there be scriptural references to the gold tablets when the Jews didn't even know that the new world existed?

 

Gotta love your logic, the stone tablets exist because an old book says that they do but the gold tablets don't exist because the old book doesn't say that they do. There's no proof for either.

 

Paul? Other than on his writings, where are his writings mentioned? Did David say that a tent maker is going to be the great interpreter of the Messiah? Nah, Paul was just as much a nut job as Mohammed, Jos. Smith, Oral Roberts, Bahullh, or even David Koresh.

[GernBlansten]

Scientology has the word science in it, but it doesn't make it based on science.

[Gold Winger]

"Scientology" . . . looking at it very hard and I don't see the word "Science" anywhere in it. Must be double secret invisible writing.

 

One could argue that Scientology and Science come from the same root, Latin for knowledge (according to Funk and Wagnalls) so Scientology would be the study of knowledge.

 

 

[BadenP]

gold winger

the depth of your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. You seem to know so little about so much.

[packsaddle]

Calico, if the responses so far are any indication, you have a good argument. I was trying to gage how these political overtures, based on religion, might be received by the public. I know the forum members might not represent a cross-section of the public but the reactions here are probably going to be expressed by many others.

And I also wonder if the reliance on one's religion to define the person will ultimately divide the country more deeply than mere politics has already.

 

Here is another way to think about all this that employs your argument, but in reverse: At one time, thousands of years ago, the Jews were more united than they are now. At another time the Christians consisted of a few disciples and their followers. From these more-or-less unified beginnings were spawned a plethora of flavors of nearly all the dominant faiths. Time was one factor. But there were others...

 

IF the process of creating these new faiths involved critical examination of what had been a unified fundamental, there must have been (at that same time) an implicit admission of fallibility of whatever aspect of the fundamental was being modified (rejected).

IF there is any hope of a religion-based political identity bringing people together, it seems to me that the same process could work, only in reverse. Perhaps if we take our faith to be less than absolute...if we are willing to consider that other ideas may have equal or greater merit, then perhaps through the same critical examination we can bring people together.

 

OK, perhaps I'm dreaming. But I think it makes sense. It could be that, for whatever reason, we choose to be divided on the basis of faith. And as long as the absolutists are unwilling to yield regarding their faiths, the fractures we have in the country are unlikely to improve. IMHO

[evmori]

Mormons are not Christians. Sure they read the Bible but, the basis of their belief (in my opinion) are the writings of John Smith who was a self-proclaimed prophet not the Bible. Therefore, not Christians.

 

Actually, Christianity isn't Jewish since Jews don't believe Jesus was the Son of God.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all(This message has been edited by evmori)

[packsaddle]

Yep, I must be dreaming.

[GernBlansten]

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

 

[Gold Winger]

"gold winger

the depth of your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. You seem to know so little about so much."

 

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. Thank you.

 

"who was a self-proclaimed prophet not the Bible. "

 

It seems like most prophets are self-proclaimed. We only have the "prophet's" word that God has spoken to him.

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle, there was just so much personal prejudice embedded in that odd set of theories yeh just described, it's hard to know where to begin.

 

First, it's pretty clear that historically Jews and Christians or whatnot were not necessarily more unified than at present. Read Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters, or any of the Hebrew Scriptures, eh? Disputes and disagreements just like we have now, eh? Different issues, different factions. In fact, it's safe to say that humans always acted ... like humans.

 

Second, it is just as plausible, perhaps more plausible, to suggest that the splits into factions and more micro-denominations arise not from critical re-examination of fundamental truths, but from the introduction of selfishness, sin, and error. So rather than implicit admission of fallibility, yeh have self-interested spinoffs. Joe Smith lookin' for attention, and claimin' a special revelation.

 

Then yeh have da bigger trends. Over history, we've seen a gradual decrease of sects and faiths, and a unification of people under broad religious banners. Religion is the one idea that stretches beyond nation-state and tribe, and dares to call Samaritans neighbors (or even brothers). To do that effectively, to be a bridge, religion must be absolute. It must trump tribe and nation. Makin' it less absolute only allows economic status, race, tribe, nation, etc. to become the dominant "theme" of human relations.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah,

I agree that people back then acted with most of the same motives as we have today. Uniformitarianism applied to social interactions...I like that. But at some time for any faith, near the origin of that faith, there must have been very few followers. My idea was that with a small population and little time to develop differences, they might have been more unified. I could be wrong but at least it seems to work that way today with churches (there's that uniformitarianism thing again). In our area anyway...the little ones seem to have fewer squabbles. But your conclusion that beliefs MUST be absolute, sigh, is probably correct.

By the way, what authority do you cite for your assertion regarding Joseph Smith?

 

As for your last paragraph I'd have to say, Nah! there's just so much personal prejudice embedded in that odd set of theories yeh just described, it's hard to know where to begin.

[evmori]

Ya missed my point GW! Mormon's have the Book of Mormon.

[Gold Winger]

"Ya missed my point GW! Mormon's have the Book of Mormon."

 

Which they use in conjunction with the bible, which essentially means that they have some scripture that you don't have. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have books in their bible that don't exist for Protestants. Do you hold that since they have different scriptures that they aren't Christians? Maybe since the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are the two halves of the original church, you aren't a christian since you don't use all of the real bible.