Re: In the News: Romney Elaborates on Evolution

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:15:08 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip to here>


(shrug) It is about personal faith and the answers to personal prayer.
Whether one believes that this is possible or not is another
discussion altogether.

Regarding this subject, that sounds like a justification for circular
arguments with an admonishment not to look behind the curtain.

OK. I would say you were correct, about most mainstream Christian
churches. A little background from my own experience, to set the
stage:

I can't tell you how many times I have been told that one MUST NOT
seek outside the Bible for proof that the bible is scripture. The
argument is that God wrote the bible, the bible says so, that's
enough. Any attempt to get an outside opinion on that is almost
blasphemous; especially if that opinion is gained from the ostensible
Author of the thing, that is, God.

Few arguments are as circular as that.

The problem is, if it is scripture (not simply old writing, but
scripture..) then there is only one place to go to prove that.
ANYthing physical we can come up with would prove only the age of the
writing, not whether or not it was 'true' in a scriptural sense.
Therefore, IF the bible is scripture, not simply very old writing,
THEN it's reasonable to assume that if you ask Him, He will tell you.

And THAT is the test that Mormons ask investigators to use.

Could it be 'mass hallucination' or 'self deception?" Sure. But it
also might not be. That depends strictly upon one's own experiences,
feelings and opinions.

Religion/faith is purely subjective, even when based on some physical
evidence--and I have no problem with that at all.

<snip to>
I am not familiar with any specific controversy or issue concerning
ties between Romans or Luke although such issues are quite common with
any number of New Testament books but this one in particular strikes
me as being at least a bit off since Luke was one of the four Gospels
covering the life of Jesus while Romans represented a period of time
that was post-resurrection.

No, you got the point...you just aren't aware that you have. Think
about it a minute; you are quite correct about the relationship
between Luke and Romans. They do not add to, or take away from, each
other, yet are both considered scripture.

I was trying to interpret your comment with respect to the issue of
various scriptures appearing to be the result of copying from earlier
source documents, some of which may no longer be in existence.
Otherwise, I just don't see any real issue here.

OK, you are talking about the physical proof of the earlier physical
existence of these writings as writings, not about whether they are
scripture or not. Gotcha.

The decision to include them
in the same collection, the Bible, was made over time...around and
about 300 years after they were written, by men who claimed that THEY
had no divine right to do so. They were simply making a collection of
scriptural works.

It wasn't that simple. Many writings that were generally considered
not divinely inspired or that were felt to reflect or support
apostasies were avoided. The result was that editing of sorts was
carried out in support of a common cause.

Problem here was that different books were avoided/included by
different people; thus to this day bibles exist that have different
compilations of books within them. Which is the "true bible?"

Answer: they all are. Or none of them are...the issue is whether each
individual writing within the bible is scripture, not whether the
collection as a whole is a 'book' in and of itself. Perhaps we should
all pay attention to the way the thing is organized: the bible isn't a
book with chapters; it is a collection of books, and each of THOSE
have chapters. The fact that this collection is bound together in one
volume doesn't make it 'one book," any more than binding 'The Complete
Stories" of Flannery O'Connor into one volume makes it a novel.

How does having more scripture 'add to' or 'take away from' any
previous work of scripture? That is a very dangerous road to tred for
any Christian, since a Jew could, with deadly accurate logic, apply
that same argument to the New Testament.

And they would be absolutely right in their view.

Yep. But...the Christians accepted the OT as it is, complete with the
verses warning against adding to the book...oops.

The question then
becomes, just as it was with church leaders 1,700 years ago, what just
doesn't fit, or what appears to be something other than what it claims
to be. The point is, we know that these writings can at least be
traced back to biblical times or thereabout and that they weren't just
made up or appear to be made up in relatively recent times. What one
chooses to make of them at this point is still another matter.

Indeed. Now we are into subjective religious faith. Mind you, a large
part of the reasoning behind the original compilation was politics...

You seem to be
splitting hairs here by limiting focus on the KJV bible and ignoring
all the additional 'revelations' as though this new material wasn't
treated with the same reverence and status, in fact perhaps even more.

"perhaps even more?" No. There is no hair splitting here, but a very
real difference in perception. As you obviously are aware, the bible
is not 'a book.' It is a COLLECTION of books. "Adding to..." in the
bible, when it was actually warned against, refers only to the
specific books in which the warnings were found.

A rather generous interpretation, if you ask me. It would still be
nice and it doesn't excuse the absence of any existing ancient
documents to back up these additions either. I know Joseph Smith had
this angle covered (with more dubious explanations) but it is more
than just a tad bit suspicious especially in light of a number of
relevant coincidences such as the writings themselves reeked of
nineteenth century theology, writings, and attitudes.

You are going to have to, I think, be more specific about the
'nineteenth century theology, writings and attitudes.'

As I've stated before, the Curse of Ham was widely popular then and so
was Freemasonry. The fact that these 'new' writings also reflected an
entirely new continent not known in biblical times and would
specifically play to the sentiments of the intended audience also
relates to this. What also should not be dismissed for a variety of
reasons, including this one, is the fact that both the fauna and the
technology that were represented as existing in the Americas of the
Book of Mormon does not pass muster now but would have 177 years ago.

....and some that didn't pass muster that long ago have been proven to
be correct. One famous example of this is the cement/concrete problem.
However, if
you are refering to language and word choices,of course they did.
Joseph Smith translated them into the language of his own time.

This is ridiculous. People of the nineteenth century did not speak
like the King's English reflected in the KJV bible.

They did in church, sir. It was a different 'register' of language
that we don't use much, but was very much a part of life at that time.
Just as we now use entirely different types of speech according to
where we are and who we are with, so did they then.

For instance: you do not use the same vocabulary or grammar with your
close friends and family that you do with your boss or your
co-workers. You do not write with the same vocabulary or rammer in a
letter to your mother than you do in an academic paper. I don't know
what you do for a living, sir, but it's obvious that you are familiar
with more formal modes of communication. Do you honestly speak to the
folks who come to a barbeque in your back yard using the same careful
manner that you write here?

Of course you don't. Nobody does. Even now, when I hear people pray, I
notice a change of register; 'thees' and 'thou's' all over the place.
Frankly, I would be far more suspicious of the Book of Mormon if it
was NOT written in such language; a different 'register' wouldn't fit
the circumstances, the man translating, or the purpose...it doesn't,
to me, reflect an attempt at fraud; quite the opposite. To me, it
reflects the honest efforts of a young man who was in WAY over his
head, and knew it.

How
could they NOT, any more than so many translations of the bible
nowadays read like rap music? On the other hand, his translation ALSO
contained poetic forms that nobody knew about at the time, forms that
were strictly ancient middle eastern, that were not used by western
writers and were not even being examined by western literary scholars
until ten to twenty years after Joseph produced the Book of Mormon.
Look up "chiasmus" as it pertains to the OT, for instance.

This is a silly argument for a number of reasons.

- There is a world of a difference between something that "nobody knew
about" in the sense that a pattern is specifically identified and
named, and something being used.

- If someone imitates a particular style of writing or speech, it can
be expected of them to produce some of the same grammatical effects,
especially given the fact that the pattern in question is not that
unique or complex.

- Even without trying to imitate a particular style of writing or
speech or even be aware of what a 'chiasmus' is, one can still reflect
this patter. Do you really think that comedian Yakof Smirnoff knew or
needed to know what a chiasmus was when he stated:

"In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia,
The Party can always find you!"

How about when Tom Waits stated:

"I?d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Your argument here has some good points..and would fly IF it were, as
represented by your examples, represented in the Book of Mormon by one
liners and throw away jokes. However, it isn't. It is represented by
very lengthy, intertwined and intricately constructed layers of
chiasmus that someone who didn't know what it was would not be able to
duplicate. Anyone can write a couplet; but how likely is it that
someone unversed in poetic forms would put one at the end of a sonnet
if he didn't know the rules?

Seems to me then, that if Joseph wasn't what he claimed to be, that he
was quite a literary genius; and if he was THAT, why did he put so
many 'and it came to pass's in there? (sigh) Shoot, we took half of
those OUT and there are still too many!

....if the Book of Mormon was the product of literary genius, why on
earth did he USE the KJV version of Isaiah (for instance) rather than
form his own version?

(shrug)

Never mind. There really is no way to physically prove this matter one
way or the other. One comes to a belief in the Book of Mormon as
scripture exactly the same way one comes to a belief in the Bible as
such...and once that belief is arrived at, THEN one finds reasons to
support one's personal belief.

- One can speak a language or in a specific style not only without
being able to parse it, but also even before a linguist ever gets
around to parsing it and labeling it for the first time.

Just going by your scenario, before chiasmus were first "examined by
western literary scholars" they were used by Shakespeare. Is this
evidence of Shake spears writings being divinely inspired then?

Yes, Shakespeare used it. However, he didn't write an entire play in
it...and that is what is found in the Book of Mormon; (and the bible,
AMOF) entire books written in it.

Not that
this is proof that the BoM is TRUE, but the lack of it would certainly
indicate that it was NOT 'true.' Since the BoM is loaded with such
poetic devices..

You really seem to be grasping at straws here. One thing that
religious apologetics and its kissing cousin Creationism have in
common is that followers make up their minds first and then look for
corroborating evidence.

Well, yes. That's because religious faith is arrived at through other
means.

This often results in this sort of
after-the-fact rationalization where the conclusion just doesn't
follow from the evidence.

That's one way to look at it, yes. Or rather, religious faith follows
a different type of evidence, and then those who are religious try to
find physical evidence to support it.

Doesn't work well, any more than it works well to pray to God to find
out if your toaster will work. Two entirely different areas.

In the case of the
bible, that would be Deuteronomy and the Book of Revelation. Not the
rest of the collection. We do not value, or 'treat with [more]
reverence' any book that we consider to be scripture over any other
book. We respect the Book of Mormon right up there with the
gospels...but no higher than that.

So would it also be your contention that the Book of Mormon adds no
new material to the mix?

It adds no new material to the BIBLE. The bible is the history of the
Jews and the very early Christians in the old world. The Book of
Mormon is the history and religious teachings of a group of people in
a different area and time.

And a very good case can be made that all of these reflect the beliefs
of the people who wrote them as opposed to them being divinely
inspired. It's just that a much stronger case can be made for the
Book of Mormon due to its proximity in time to the present.

If, that is, one is convinced that the Book of Mormon was actually
written 'in the present' (or in the nineteenth century) and that is
the question being begged here.

And the argument that the Book of Mormon
'reads well' alongside the KJV bible (itself highly suspicious)

you mean, that the Book of Mormon uses KJV language, and even includes
word for word transcriptions of...Isaiah, for instance...within it?

Yes, mistakes and all.

Ok, you are 21. You have not been well educated, and your only
exposure to scripture has been the KJV...no new translations into
modern speaking patterns. KJV English is the language of religion and
respect. What would you use to translate new scripture into? Perhaps,
now that so many modern language bibles are around us, you might
simply use everyday forms of speech. Would you have done so in the
early nineteenth century, when people (the Quakers at the time, for
instance) were still using "thee" as the familiar form of speech?

OK....now you come to a section that you recognize. It's Isaiah. You
already know of a translation of Isaiah that is perfectly adequate.

But then that's not the same thing as transcribing the original
material, especially if you copy an already existing version, mistakes
and all.

That's true.

That is hardly the method someone wants to use particularly
if they are claiming that they are doing so to create a more correct
and uncorrupted version than the one that already existed at the time.

Joseph Smith wasn't claiming to do that, y'know. In fact, he had no
problems at all with the KJV at the time.

It's not copywrited, and you dont know from 'copywrite,' anyway.
So...why reinvent the wheel? You breathe a sigh of relief...somebody
has already DONE that part, and stick it in there.

Sounds like really shabby work to me and I should know - I was a
transcriber/translator for 24 years. And even if it is not
technically copywrited it is still plagiarism and goes directly
against what Smith was claiming to do, namely create a non-corrupted
version of the Bible..

Excuse me, but there is the problem right there. Joseph Smith was NOT
attempting to 'create a non-corrupted version of the bible.' Is that
where the miscommunication is, here? The Book of Mormon is NOT the
Bible. It was never meant to be, nor was it ever meant to take the
place of the Bible, or to correct it in any manner. It's not about the
same group of people, or the same events, or even placed upon the same
continent. They are entirely different books. Both SCRIPTURE, we
believe, but neither replaces the other. In any way.

Even so, you manage to include poetic forms that the rest of the
English speaking world won't even recognize for several more years,
poetic forms that depend upon content and form, not specific language.

Are we taking about Shakespeare here? Yakof Smirnoff? I remember an
old cigarette add that went "You can take Salem out of the country
but...you can't take the country out of Salem." Is that some sort of
evidence of the divinity of Salem cigarettes? Did an adman really
need to be aware of the existence of a particular poetic form to use
it?

As I mentioned earlier, there is a huge difference between chiasmus in
a two line couplet or a one-liner, and chiasmus as used to form an
entire chapter, or book. Even Shakespeare didn't do that. Isaiah,
however, did. So did the writer of the Psalms, and of Genesis....and
so did the writers of the Book of Mormon.

As I said, none of this proves that the Book of Mormon is scripture,
or true. It simply shows that the objections made to it on these
grounds are considerably less damning than those who make them want
you to think.

I'm not going to state some absolute like there is no good argument in
defense of the BoM that can stand up to scrutiny but you certainly
haven't given any here.

I'm not attempting to prove the Book of Mormon to be 'true.' I am
simply pointing out that some of the objections used to prove it
"untrue' are not applicable.

.....and chiasmus is, when examined as it was used in the OT and in the
BoM (as opposed to comic one-liners) is one of those.

just happens to share similar messages is not anywhere near the same
thing as whether or not it appears legitimate.

One thing it clearly is is a pretext to Joseph Smith's claim that he
led the one true church with himself attaining (or restoring if he
were to be taken at face value) the lead position in the only existing
legitimate line of succession from Peter on down. This was equivalent
to having himself crowned pope using nothing more than his own
writings.

Excuse me if I choose to see this as appearing highly questionable.

Ah. But the problem here is, (and here is the kicker) if he was a
prophet, that was his JOB.

And if he was a con man that was his JOB.

Sure. So the question is, was he a prophet?

If he was self-delusional
that would have been reflected as well. There are a lot of potential
explanations for this here and no evidence of an independent variety
that I know of exists that supports your particular conclusion. Other
conclusions that are a lot less favorable to Mormonism are better
supported.

Well, I'm a Mormon, am still a Mormon...and I've spent a lot of years
looking at this stuff. I can't come up with an objection that is
irrefutable by reasonable logic if the premise--that is, that Joseph
Smith was a very young prophet--is taken into account.

Here's the thing: if you can come up with an objection that CANNOT be
reasonably countered with something using that as a premise, then I'll
consider it. However, since the question is actually whether Joseph
was one or not...you see the problem?

Since my belief that he was a prophet is based upon something other
than the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, well....yep,
it's a problem.


The question isn't whether what he wrote
was all the proof there is of his authority.

Some of the actual content of what he wrote and some of the
circumstances surrounding these writings did the exact opposite of
proving or indicating his authority.

Such as? I have already given plausible, and reasonable, explanations
of them that depend upon his being who and what he says he was....

Here's the thing: in all my years I've never come across anything that
is a deal breaker; that is, some piece of evidence that proves that
Joseph Smith could not possibly have been a prophet; something that is
so incontrovertible, so inarguable, that his claim to divine
revelation is impossible. Since my own faith begins with the idea that
God is, that His Son is, and that both of them personally spoke with a
boy named Joseph Smith, everything naturally follows from that and can
be, for me, explained in that light.

I've come across many people who believe that Joseph Smith was a
fraud, but their conviction that he is not is based upon the same
thing my belief that he is is based upon; subjective faith in
something else. It's not that they believe that Joseph Smith is false;
it's that they believe that something else is true--and that something
else precludes the idea that Joseph's story is true.

For instance: if one believes that there is no God, then OF COURSE
Joseph couldn't be a prophet, and everything around him can be
explained in that light. Or, if one believes that there is a God, but
He doesn't talk to us any more, the same thing applies. Or, if one
believes in a God, but doesn't believe that He had anything to say
after Pentecost, well...there you go. And that doesn't even touch
those who are theist but not Christian.

The question is, whether
God actually spoke to him and told him to do all these things. If He
did, THAT is the authority.

The exact same could be said of so many other false prophets that this
is pretty much meaningless.


Only if there is no way to find out which is which. The test is the
same either way.

If He didn't, then no physical proof ever
provided will authenticate his works, will it?

If he didn't OR if he did!

Physical? no. There is another way, however. One that is intrinsic
within the claim itself.

.....and there is only one way to find out whether Joseph Smith was a
prophet of God, just as there is only one way to find out if the bible
itself is scripture. No amount of archeology or anthropology or
anything else will speak to that.

And neither will self-serving rationalizations.

If that's what you want to call it.

You have to ask God yourself, trust that you will get an answer, and
then trust the answer. Faith.

And trust that the 'warm and fuzzy' or 'burning in the belly' you get
is really setting you on the right path as opposed to it being simply
a natural reaction?

Well, yeah. Of course, there IS this problem: one has to go into the
experience with an open mind. Not TOO open, mind you...just the faith
that IF God exists, and IF the claim being made is true (in the case
of the Book of Mormon, for instance, the claim is that if you read it,
think about it, and then ask God, you can get an answer) THEN by
actually testing the promise, you'll find out.

Seems fair to me. Of course, I've found that those who dismiss the
results as 'burning in the belly' and 'warm fuzzy's" aren't going into
the experience with even that much of an open mind.

To dismiss it with those terms is like the kid walking down the street
with his hands over his eyes shouting LALALLA at the top of his voice
so he won't hear or see anything. You aren't going to make ME learn
anything, he is saying....

It's quite possible that one will leave the experience completely
unmoved. It happens. But it just seems silly to me to dismiss it
without trying it fairly...and then insisting to those of us who have
received a positive answer that we are self deluded.

For some reason 'sour grapes' rings a bell here.

I'm sure that there have been plenty of warm and
fuzzies in the past that contradict each other. In fact plenty of
good Mormons have been excommunicated in the past for having what they
claimed were personal revelations that ran counter to official church
dogma. That doesn't strike me as being a very reliable form of
communication.

Is ANY form of communication reliable, when humans are involved?

and yeah, that's a tough sell.

Many circular arguments are.

What is circular about this one?

The same goes for other books. So
no. We are not 'adding to the bible,' We can't. IT's done, do matter
what books are included within that collection.

That's funny, my Bible doesn't include the various books of Nephi, the
Book of Enos, the Book of Omni, etc. And yet again you're really
splitting hairs if what you are doing is to treat these books as
separate from the Bible and yet still insist that they are some sort
of gospels or teachings on the same par. In short, you seem to want
it both ways here. No they're really not part of the teachings of the
bible but not only should they be they essentially are.

OK, try this. You have a county library. It has shelves and shelves of
books. The OED is taking up two of 'em. the Encyclopedia Britannica is
taking up another set. You consider them both to be authoritative
sources for research, yet the OED is NOT the Encyclopedia Britannica,
and the encyclopedia is NOT the Oxford English Dictionary. They are
both complete resources in and of themselves. Where they touch on the
same subjects, they complement each other. You trust them both.

Actually, I don't implicitly trust either of them. In fact I have
found an article or two in the Encyclopedia Britannica that included
information that I knew to be false. Also, the Bible typically isn't
read in the same way with each and every book having the possibility
of being perfectly valid, completely invalid or somewhere in between.

Uhm....I'm not a biblical inerrantist. Mormons aren't, y'know.
Therefore this is not a good argument to make with me.

We believe that the Bible is the word of God (as far as it is
translated correctly) and we believe that the Book of Mormon is the
word of God (with the same caveat, as found on the title page) and we
believe that the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price
are also scriptures to the same level.

Yes, if you set your mind to it, you can pretty much believe anything.

Can you? I suppose. I met a man once who insisted that I was simply a
dream he was having; that when he woke up from it, not only I, but all
of the universe, would disappear. He was serious.

However,it doesn't mean that anything one believes is therefore false,
does it?

We do NOT believe that they are the same book. Different texts.
Different sources. Different stories of different peoples.

Using the same analogy you could just as easily add the books 'Green
Eggs and Ham' or Machiavelli's 'The Prince' to that list. It still
wouldn't indicate that either of them were some sort of inspired
works.

Yes, and you are correct. It doesn't. But these are two entirely
different questions, yes?

If you are equating 'scripture' with 'bible' then we have a problem,
since then the conversation becomes whether or not any new SCRIPTURE
can be created after the biblical canon has been decided upon.

Not that I'm a big fan of definitive canons but far less of a case
could be made for a number of Mormon writings.

Depends. How much of a 'case' can be made of the story of Joshua
holding the sun still for three days...or for Moses parting the Red
sea?

The fact that the story is OLD doesn't mean that the story is TRUE...

I do have a feeling that many of your objections to LDS writings are
based upon facts that are problematic. I've been around the apologetic
block a fairly long time now, and I know that there are quite a number
of stories about the origin of the BoM and other books of ours that,
frankly, just ain't so.

Now THAT is a different topic, a theological argument about 'truth' of
religious thought, not of composition of texts.

Perhaps but the specifics of what is reflected in the texts and, far
more importantly, how this pans out under scrutiny does indeed have a
lot to do with the 'truth' of said composition.

Could be. Of course, first we have to figure out what those specifics
are. There's a lot of misinformation out there.


Such arguments appear a bit slippery to say the least.

Smith therefore
founded a new religion. And that, as I understand it, is how a neutral
party distinguishes a sect from a religion.

I have to admit, this is new. I have never heard that this is the
dividing line. Would you care to give me some...oh, authoritative
opinion on this, one that I might even agree with?

This is obviously a very gray area but one thing that at least might
be considered is the collective viewpoint of fellow Christians.

Why? Give me one good reason why we should, when we consider that our
fellow Christians are incorrect about other things, that we should
consider them correct about this?

Because you avoid completely self-serving circular arguments that
insulate you from perhaps perfectly valid biblical criticisms.

The ironic thing about this is that we are about the only Christians
I know that avoid that circular reasoning, given that we are among the
few Christian sects that believe one is entitled to go outside the
text for proof OF that text. Indeed, we believe you MUST do so, since
no scripture is proof of itself.

I've got news for you. Unless some invisible deity is talking to you
loud and clear, and I don't mean you just feeling good about it, you
are still relying on circular arguments.

Dismissing the answers many of us recieve as 'just feeling good about
it' is akin to comparing the the sun to an unlit match. Believe me, we
know the difference between 'warm fuzzies" and an answer to such a
prayer.

Don't you think that those of us who have experienced this know the
difference between this....and a mere 'warm fuzzy?" "Warm fuzzy's"
are what you get from a Halmark card or a Lassie movie. THIS? This
changes lives. One does not do that for 'warm fuzzies.'

That
said, about the only 'authoritative opinion' you might get would have
to come from certain key religious officials and that varies widely
from denomination to denomination. Most would still probably put
Mormonism on the other side of the line though.

I care not.

Here's the thing; if we go by the very UN dictionary definition of
"Christian" that seems to be the one 'they' use, which is to say "A
Christian is....(whatever they happen to be)" we can come up with a
common definition; that is, "A Christian is someone who believes the
truth about Christ." The truth, of course, being whatever it is the
speaker believes.

I would go further than that and say a Christian is someone who holds
to the teachings of Christ, as they understand them perhaps but still
within certain limitations. In a sense this is a bit broader
definition and more descriptive of the individual's outlook or guiding
philosophy. Plus, not everyone can agree on what the "truth about
Christ" in fact is even if they can generally agree on what the
teachings are.

Careful, you are starting to agree with me.

If we agree with that definition, that a Christian is someone who
believes the truth about Christ, then the conclusion for us would be
obvious; we are the Christians and they.....aren't.

Which is precisely why didn't like that definition on first reading,
even before I got to this next paragraph.

Perhaps we (you and I) don't like that definition. However, for those
who refuse the name "Christian" to us, that IS the definition used.
Those who refuse it to us also tend to refuse it to anybody else who
disagrees with them on doctrinal matters, such as the Catholics, for
instance.

Yes, the term has both a broad and a narrow definition. If it is
truly about the teachings of Christ then it can be difficult sometimes
to divorce from the discussion the very real issue of what
specifically were the teachings of Jesus that are to be followed.

Perhaps...but the discussion of what those teachings actually ARE is
an entirely different thing.

However, that is not the definition we use. WE would go by the
dictionary, and the idea that A Christian is someone who honestly
thinks he is one, basically. Whether we think he's right about those
beliefs or not is not the issue.

But it can and arguably should be an issue if someone goes off in left
field and starts attributing anything and everything they please to
Jesus, particularly without foundation, so they can pass off their own
personally beliefs as being Christian or under the Christian umbrella.
There is no effective delineation with this open-ended definition.

Not much, no. So? THEY still think they are Christian; that is, they
self identify. No matter how wierd they may be, their beliefs do not
affect those of any other Christian, do they?

Beliefs? No! Definitions? Yes!

How? What, for instance, does my being a Christian by definition do to
any other Christian? Does his life change? Do his beliefs change? Is
he proven right or wrong ABOUT those beliefs?

Or....by admitting that we are Christian too, do we remove a reason to
hate us? By removing us from that definition, are we not then removed
from the group, made 'other,' and thus possible targets for hate?

This is not an idle question. It is a FACT that before you can
persecute someone, you must first make him 'other.'

<snip to>

Actually, we aren't. We don't claim to be the 'true Christians'. We
are Christians, and we have the 'true church.'

Well! Excuse me for seeing this as being more than a bit arrogant
particularly given the foundation of the writings this was based on!

Well, if we didn't believe this, we'd be something else, wouldn't we?

You are what you are in both the eyes of yourself and the eyes of
those who disagree with you the most. What that is just happens to be
an issue of perception.

Trust me, those who "disagree with [us]the most' do NOT think we are
the 'only true church.' But tell me...how is it arrogant on OUR part
to claim that while other Christians have truth, we have more of it?
Isn't that what all Christian sects claim for themselves? (well,
actually, most of the ones I meet claim that they are true and nothing
we believe can possibly be so...which is the arrogant position?)

How many people do YOU know who preach a belief they think is
incorrect? (outside of a a very few hypocrites...) Trust me on this
one, very, very few people stay with a belief system if they think
they can find truth and happiness better elsewhere. So if that is
arrogant, pretty much everybody is arrogant in exactly the same way.
In everything.

Not everyone goes out of their way to try and convince others that
they are right and everybody else was wrong. Not every religion
proselytize to the same degree as the Mormons do.

No, not all do. Most do, however. It's simply a matter of who they
proselyte TO. Mainstream Christianity is ticked off at the Mormons
because we send missionaries to THEM, rather than the 'heathen.'
Actually, we think that the heathens don't need us as much.;-)

However, you might want to examine something here: if you go to
alt.religion.christian.whatever and examine some of the posts, you
will find all sorts of people attacking the Mormons...rather nastily,
AMOF. If you go to alt.religion.mormon or worse,
alt.religion.mormon.fellowship, you will find many representatives of
fine Christian sects (and atheists and who knows what else) attacking
Mormonism with every form of rhetoric and insult possible. Go out and
you will find that almost every mainstream Christian sect has official
publications warning about Mormons. "The Maze of Mormonism" "Mormonism
Unvailed" "The Godmakers" ....many, many others. You will find, on
pretty much any day but especially on General Conference weekends,
many, many demonstrators at the SLC Temple Square waving signs,
shouting obscenities, displaying Temple Garments and blocking the
entrance to the meetings. I have seen thousands of anti-Mormon
pamphlets, and read hundreds of them. At my husband's funeral, some
twit put a pamphlet under my windshield warning me that the deceased
was in hell and I would soon follow if I didn't leave the devil Mormon
church. (We all needed the laugh..I have often wondered if Jim didn't
somehow arrange that...)

ANYway...now go look at other newsgroups. See if you can find any
Mormons attacking the beliefs of other people on those groups. See if
you can find a Mormon invading someone else's fellowship group and
insulting the beliefs of that group. See if you can find any
publication by the church, or by people identifying themselves as
Mormon (at least, as LDS) who address the beliefs of any other
specific religion in order to attack them or prove them wrong. Go back
a century if you want to.

We aren't out to convince anybody that we are right and they are
WRONG. We simply show them what we have, and let them make their own
decisions. We do not, AMOF, address their beliefs at all. Most of the
time, when someone joins the church, it's not because we have insulted
their old beliefs sufficiently; it's because they find something in
what we have that vindicates what they have been taught all their
lives; that pulls together things that they always believed, but
weren't quite sure how to express. The LAST thing we do is tell all
the Christians out there that they are 'all wrong,' because they
aren't. Not completely. ;-)

There is a very big
difference. For one thing, we aren't going to be stupid enough to
claim that only Mormons can have a personal relationship with Christ,
or that only Mormons have any truth. We don't claim that AT all. Our
claim is that we have the most truth. Everybody has some. We have
more.

Which makes you no different than most other religions, at least with
respect to the belief that your truth is better than others.

Unless of course we are correct.

Wishful thinking.

Now THAT is a matter of perspective/opinion. Mine differs from yours.

It's
just that, coming from a theology with such obvious nineteenth century
roots, that sound particularly dubious. At least early Judaism and
Christianity have the advantage of time to cover their tracks.

Indeed. Of course, that is illogical as all get out. Personally, I
look at modern mainstream Christianity (and many other religions) and
have to wonder; most of 'em are quite willing to believe that stuff
like direct revelation from God was perfectly OK....2000 years ago.
However, having it happen NOW is rather gauche. Somewhat distasteful,
like spilling soup at a formal dinner or something. They require that
time distance to be safe in their own systems. (shrug)

Which also makes their theology at least a little bit more
untouchable.

More polite, and comfortable, anyway; acceptable in the proper
company. We think that true faith should be less comfortable and more
vital; less a matter of smugness, and more like a kick in the
character.

Perhaps it would help to understand this about us: WE do not insist
that 'Christian' means "saved" or "headed for heaven." It simply
means, as the dictionary says, that our faith is based around the
teachings of one Jesus Christ, who lived in Nazareth about 2000 years
ago. This doesn't mean that our beliefs about Him are the same as
everyone else's...they aren't.

Of course such a loose definition of Christian, those who follow the
specific teachings of Christ among others (even more traditional
Christians also follow the Old Testament as well) might also include
Muslims, Bahai, and Unitarians as well as those people who don't even
believe in God, Jesus, or the resurrection but follow the teachings
anyway because they think it is a good philosophy to live by.

Ok. The problem with this is, what, precisely?

Nor can we be called either "orthodox"
nor "protestant." If we are a separate classification, perhaps
'restorationist' is the best one.

Which is just as empty of a claim in the eyes of those who disagree
with you on whether or not you are a *true* Christian since they
certainly wouldn't hold that you are really restoring the Church to
the way it once was.

Of course they don't. They are being silly, though. It's not a claim
that our beliefs are 'true.' It's simply a description of what our
beliefs ARE. It's a handy file folder.

Interesting dodge! There is nothing "silly" about expecting something
to stay true to concept. If you are claiming to be restoring the
church to its original form it certainly would be reasonable to expect
valid evidence showing that this is what you are actually in fact
doing.

OK....For that you would need to examine the early church practices
and organizations, and then look to see what modern version of
Christianity actually has that organization. You know, prophets,
apostles, etc.

That's just provable physical organization, and doesn't touch on
anything else.

And since when are someone's beliefs NOT also what they hold to be
true?

Say what? Of course they think their beliefs are true, or they'd
believe something else. Where did this come from?

Your declaration that yours is a true restorationist church and yet
the term 'restorationist' is a mere "handy file folder" and not also a
claim on your part just doesn't hold water.

It's the logical extension of classification. Like "Christian",
"Restorationist" is not a claim of TRUTH. It's a claim of
classification of belief. I don't have a problem with the Seventh Day
Adventists being a Restorationist church, for instance.

This sounds like the foundation of another slippery piece of
sophistry. Either you believe that you are restoring the church to
what it once was or you don't. If it doesn't jibe with established
facts then it doesn't.

We believe that. What has that got to do with Christianity as a whole?
<snip>

It has to do with the validity of your claim that yours is the one
true restorationist church and whether or not that claim can be
independently supported.

You are mixing things up again. There are several Restorationist
churches, many Christian churches, MANY theist beliefs. That doesn't
make them all "True" in ANY sense. It simply means that if you are
looking at them, putting certain labels on their belief systems helps
you sort what those beliefs are about.

The CoJCoLDS is a restorationist Christian church. There are others.
We, however, ALSO claim to be 'true'....and the two ideas are entirely
separate from one another.

.

Loading