Ask a Mormon, Part 3

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's never happened to me. Although when I was a missionary a lot of people thought I was with the INS or something. ¡La Migra!

 

[brainpan]

My brother went on a mission to Arcadia. At least that's the name of the mission. Most of his time was spent in East LA.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

he was probably Spanish speaking then, like me. What was his name?

 

[downtown]

^I think a lot of the California missions are actually dissolving "English" missions. I was in one of the last missionary classes to be called to Sacramento on an English mission, and the rumor around the MTC, and our mission leadership, was that it was the same way in the LA area. The areas are so diverse, that you really need to be bilingual to be effective. I could only work in maybe half of the mission, because I didn't know any other language.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think they already do that in a lot of Texas missions. If you get called, you learn Spanish and switch between English and Spanish wards.

 

[CartesianFart]

What is the most hostile published book that is deemed as the most subversive text against the Mormon Religion (and please do not refer Mormons as Christians)?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't know, we don't really quantify that sort of thing.

And what is the parenthetical statement supposed to mean?

 

[CartesianFart]

Meaning that Mormonism is not really Christianity at all. It is more equivalent to reformed Judaism as the Christian movement was during the first 4 centuries till it was Romanized. So, therefore, Mormonism is not Christianity but something of a Reformed Christian/Judaic religion till it gets its own stake in power of the mainstream Empire (United States).

I hope that will not happen though, since we should be not bringing another religion into dominance as once was during the heyday of the Catholics.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Meaning that Mormonism is not really Christianity at all.

well... to be called Christian, you must believe in Christ, and seeing as the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are Christians

if that sounded like i was trying to be mean, it wasn't, im just stating

 

[CartesianFart]

well... to be called Christian, you must believe in Christ, and seeing as the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are Christians

True... but you are overly stating something falsely in the right direction. To be a Christian, you must of course believe in Christ, but you also must strictly adhere to His Disciples and the authority of the Scriptures that is collected during early days of the Christian movement, not another Prophet and other teachings that was created by mens during the 19th century.

if that sounded like i was trying to be mean, it wasn't, im just stating

No problem. I find it not mean that you are conveying, but simply fictitiously being programmed by the Mormon Church. If you are indeed a Mormon, I assume.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

True but you are overly stating something falsely in the right direction. To be a Christian, you must of course believe in Christ, but you also must strictly adhere to His Disciples and the authority of the Scriptures that is collected during early days of the Christian movement, not another Prophet and other teachings that was created by mens during the 19th century.

Well, we do adhere to the authority of the early Church. As far as any other definition of Christian (such as believing only in the canon codified in the 4th Century, etc.) such definitions are arbitrary, lack authority, and half the time are just post hoc justifications for excluding certain groups from Christianity anyways. There is after all no overwhelming reason that one of the definitions or criteria of Christianity be that prophecy ended at a certain specific date.

 

[CartesianFart]

Well, we do adhere to the authority of the early Church.

No you don't. If you did, you would cease to be a Mormon.

As far as any other definition of Christian (such as believing only in the canon codified in the 4th Century, etc.) such definitions are arbitrary, lack authority, and half the time are just post hoc justifications for excluding certain groups from Christianity anyways.

Is that the whole point? When a religion is institutionalized, certain definitions becomes dogmatic, and any attempt to undermine it, is something of undermining the institution and what it stands for?

Does Mormonism also do this as well? I highly think so.

There is after all no overwhelming reason that one of the definitions or criteria of Christianity be that prophecy ended at a certain specific date.

If so, what make you think that the Mormon religion hold the right specific date of the prophecy since we cannot know for certain when the date will be?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No you don't. If you did, you would cease to be a Mormon.

On the contrary, all of Christendom claims to follow the authority of the early Christian church, and they all disagree. So how would you determine if they are or aren't?

Is that the whole point? When a religion is institutionalized, certain definitions becomes dogmatic, and any attempt to undermine it, is something of undermining the institution and what it stands for?

There has never really, not even in the beginning, been one single Christian Church or one single identifiable Christian doctrine. From the beginning there has been heterodoxy, difference of opinion, and struggle for authority. Hence there is no single criterion for what makes an individual or a doctrine Christian or not.

Does Mormonism also do this as well? I highly think so.

We can set the defining doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as that is a single organization with clearly defined parameters. Even then, there is plenty of room for difference of opinion on most doctrinal matters. We don't even have the ability to speak for all of "Mormonism" (which, as Warren Jeffs has proved, encompasses a far greater range of belief than just what the LDS Church says) let alone all of Christianity.

If so, what make you think that the Mormon religion hold the right specific date of the prophecy since we cannot know for certain when the date will be?

The question isn't (in this case) if Mormonism is true. What I said, what I meant, was that most of Christianity says that, in essence, the prophecy and revelation of the early church ended within a hundred years. We say it didn't. But it is completely arbitrary to say that a church which accepts that revelation occurred up to 100 CE is Christian, but one that says it continued to, say, 400 CE isn't. But you would have to do that to say that by definition Christianity precludes revelation in 1830 or 2007.

 

[CartesianFart]

On the contrary, all of Christendom claims to follow the authority of the early Christian church, and they all disagree. So how would you determine if they are or aren't?

How come I don't see the gospel of some writers in your Church's text and why is it that writers of whatever gospels of your Church's text not being in other denominational Churches' text?

Also, who is the first Pope? I wonder if he is in your Church's text?

There has never really, not even in the beginning, been one single Christian Church or one single identifiable Christian doctrine. From the beginning there has been heterodoxy, difference of opinion, and struggle for authority. Hence there is no single criterion for what makes an individual or a doctrine Christian or not.

I disagree of your vain attempt to undermine the problem of the complexity of whatever is not pure, then it is ok to make anything up since most of the things that was defined is liable for to be modified arbitrarily. This is a weak argument on your point on the justification of Mormonism having a right to do whatever they want and still call themselves Christian when they are obviously not.

We can set the defining doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as that is a single organization with clearly defined parameters. Even then, there is plenty of room for difference of opinion on most doctrinal matters.

Of course, and I wouldn't be surprised to see many schism (in the Mormon Religion) being made if I was capable of living another thousands of years. Of course, that is not the case.

We don't even have the ability to speak for all of "Mormonism" (which, as Warren Jeffs has proved, encompasses a far greater range of belief than just what the LDS Church says) let alone all of Christianity.

Jeffs who?

The question isn't (in this case) if Mormonism is true. What I said, what I meant, was that most of Christianity says that, in essence, the prophecy and revelation of the early church ended within a hundred years. We say it didn't. But it is completely arbitrary to say that a church which accepts that revelation occurred up to 100 CE is Christian, but one that says it continued to, say, 400 CE isn't. But you would have to do that to say that by definition Christianity precludes revelation in 1830 or 2007.

So Mormonism is indeed, by what you are exclaiming it to be, a mere "reformed Christianity" as when the early days of the Christian movement after Jesus death being a reformed Judaic Cult?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, let's set Mormonism aside for the moment. First of all, so that I know what you are saying and where you are coming from, answer a few question:

1. What are the essential defining characteristics of Christianity? In other words, what must an individual, doctrine, or organization be in order to be able to legitimately call itself Christian, and what must it not be?

2. On what grounds do these characteristics or criteria have any authority? In other words, why is the definition that you give in #1 the correct one?

 

[CartesianFart]

Okay, let's set Mormonism aside for the moment. First of all, so that I know what you are saying and where you are coming from, answer a few question:

I will answer these two first as long as you will honestly answer mine second.

1. What are the essential defining characteristics of Christianity? In other words, what must an individual, doctrine, or organization be in order to be able to legitimately call itself Christian, and what must it not be?

The Catholic Religion, which Peter being the "First VIcar of Christ."

2. On what grounds do these characteristics or criteria have any authority? In other words, why is the definition that you give in #1 the correct one?

[/QUOTE]They were by far the first as long as the records states it being the first.

 

[downtown]

So...Lutherans are not christians then? Baptists?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, so you say that to be Christian, one must be Roman Catholic, and you base that on the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is essentially the early Church as founded by the apostles and disciples of Jesus?

By that standards, neither Mormonism, nor most of what is usually called the Christian world, can be considered Christianity. I call into question your second answer (the records don't really say that) and your first depends on it, but yes, by that definition Mormonism isn't Christian.

So what exactly was your question?

 

[jafink]

Eran, it's wierd that you are online right now, because there is someone called Catharsis who says in his sig "formerly known as Eran of Arcadia". Do you have two accounts now?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, that's a joke.

What happened was, swedishguy mentioned in the avatar thread that he was looking for a new avatar. I said that anything would be better than the one he had, so he copied mine. And my sig, and made his user title "Stormin' Moron". Then gandhi rules copied mine. The Catharsis went even further. Kind of a weird joke, that's all.