Mormon

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Stephen E. Robinson concludes that "The doctrinal exclusion [of Mormons] assumes that Christianity is one monolithic point of view when in fact the multiplicity of Christian denominations witnesses that it is not."

Where do you find these shockingly bad examples of logic? Time for some more reductio ad absurdum.

The exclusion of snakes as mammals assumes that 'mammal' is one monolithic classification when in fact the diversity of mammals witnesses that is not.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

Where do you find these shockingly bad examples of logic? Time for some more reductio ad absurdum.

The exclusion of snakes as mammals assumes that 'mammal' is one monolithic classification when in fact the diversity of mammals witnesses that is not.

I gcás a gceadaíonn an comhthéacs é, or the context provides grounds for the argument. Taking something out of context and oversimplifying a complex topic (i.e., are Mormons Christians?) to make a point falsifies reductio ad absurdum?

NilByMouth

IwasFrozen:
You first posted on the 30th of june asking about mormonism.(giving the impression you were new to it)

Half way through the thread you said you were an atheist.

And by the day 23 you are quoting the bible and the mormon holy books in defense of said religion.

Thats some conversion!!!If i wasnt agnostic i would of said 'praise the lord'!

Anyways keep up the discussion.Dont think I've ever read a full thread without foaming at the mouth.

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I gcás a gceadaíonn an comhthéacs é, or the context provides grounds for the argument. Taking something out of context and oversimplifying a complex topic (i.e., are Mormons Christians?) to make a point falsifies reductio ad absurdum?

Bad logic is bad logic in whatever context it occurs.

The argument you quoted is based on the following premise:
If X contains a number of variations then it is impossible to say that Y is not X. (Where X=Christianity and Y=Mormonism)

Trying to cover up bad logic by accusing your opponent of oversimplifying is not very credible. "It's complicated" is not a good defence for bad reasoning unless you're a parent conversing with a toddler.

Maybe I'll understand it when I grow up.

PDN

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Well, monotheism with three Godheads-the trinity?

No, the Trinity affirms one Godhead.

Trinitarian monotheism affirms that three Persons (not three people) exist in the Godhead, but are composed of one essence (being). This is not polytheism (such as you find in Hinduism or Mormonism) as Trintarianism states that God is not plural.

This is hard to understand because we are finite beings trying to speak of an Eternal Infinite Being. But when you bring an extra dimension into the discussion it breaks down our hard & fast classification of things as singular or plural.

Let's use a fun little illustration. Imagine you invented a time machine and travelled back in time to your childhood where you meet your childhood self. Are you and your childhood self two separate people? You are more than one - but you are less than two because you have no independent existence (as demonstrated by the fact that if you killed your childhood self then you would cease to exist - oh wait, but then you wouldn't have existed so you couldn't have killed your childhood self ). Once we start thinking in terms of eternity (outside the constraints of time) then we can begin to comprehend the possibility of things that are something more than singular but less than plural.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

Bad logic is bad logic in whatever context it occurs.

"Bad" logic assumes that there is "good" logic, which in this particular case suffers from the limitations associated with dichotomies when ignoring context and oversimplifying phenomenon merely for argument sake (see Points by Jacques Derrida).

PDN wrote: »

The argument you quoted is based on the following premise:
If X contains a number of variations then it is impossible to say that Y is not X. (Where X=Christianity and Y=Mormonism)

This is a false premise and a gross oversimplification of the posts made in this thread that conveniently ignores the context, content, complexity, and meaning.

This "bad" or good, X or Y, Christianity or not Christianity (as pertains to Mormons), oversimplification of complex phenomena taken out of context constructs a false dilemma (aka, false dichotomy), suggesting that only two alternatives exist for argument sake, then proceeding with that false premise which completely distorts the meaning, content, and intent of the posts made.

PDN wrote: »

"It's complicated" is not a good defence for bad reasoning unless you're a parent conversing with a toddler.

There is a great deal of diversity and disagreement in doctrine evident in Christian denominations (perhaps more so for Mormon Christians suggesting that they are not mainstream). For example, Lutheran Missouri Synod demands that the Bible be taken literally word-for-word, whereas the Lutheran ELCA throws out non-scientific statements (e.g., rabbits chewing their cud, bats listed with fowl, the Sun orbiting the Earth, etc.) found in Scripture, suggesting that "context," culture, discovery, and history must be considered in its authorship, and that things are not necessarily black or white, X or Y, but more complex when interpreting the Bible phenomenon as divine inspiration (if you believe it was divinely inspired).

BrianCalgary

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There is a great deal of diversity and disagreement in doctrine evident in Christian denominations (perhaps more so for Mormon Christians suggesting that they are not mainstream). For example, Lutheran Missouri Synod demands that the Bible be taken literally word-for-word, whereas the Lutheran ELCA throws out non-scientific statements (e.g., rabbits chewing their cud, bats listed with fowl, the Sun orbiting the Earth, etc.) found in Scripture, suggesting that "context," culture, discovery, and history must be considered in its authorship, and that things are not necessarily black or white, X or Y, but more complex when interpreting the Bible phenomenon as divine inspiration (if you believe it was divinely inspired).

The differences in doctrines between denominations are always to secondary and even tertiary and beyond doctrines.

The core values and beliefs of Christianity just don't line up with Mormonism. Doctrines specifically on salvation and deity of Christ.

All Christian denominations are in agreement on these issues, which make tem Christian.

There are also different denominations within the Mormon faith.

Black Swan

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The core values and beliefs of Christianity just don't line up with Mormonism. Doctrines specifically on salvation and deity of Christ.

Well, I can understand their problems with the decisions made by a Roman Emperor and a group of church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD with regard to how the Trinity was to be defined vis-a-vis Christ. The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, and was coined almost two centuries after the death of Christ. Furthermore, the Bible is not clear on precisely how God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are to be treated, which was the purpose of the Council to clarify? The assumption is that this human Roman Emperor and group of non-Apostle church leaders were divinely inspired in their interpretations of Bible scripture when resolving the arguments and disputes that had been growing for over three centuries since the death of Christ? (For some reason I have a real problem with a Roman Emperor leading the Council of Nicea, and perhaps influencing the decision process with his obvious superior power)

From what I have read, the Mormons identify with the position held by many early pre-325 AD Christians regarding how God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were treated. So if the Mormons were not Christians due in part to rejecting the decisions of the Council of Nicea, what about those early Christians before 325 AD that held the same or similar belief (as the Mormons do today regarding God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)? Are these pre-325 AD early believers in Christ excluded too from being labeled Christians retroactively, or grandfathered as early Christians, or were never Christians in the first place given the 325 AD decision, or what?

The decisions made by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD seem to be very central to what some have used in this thread to define "Christian." Given its importance, have you found in your studies of the Bible clear agreement between the Apostles themselves (not their later interpreters), regarding precisely how God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were to be treated, and was that clearly consistent with the decisions of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There are also different denominations within the Mormon faith.

There are several denominations of the Lutheran faith, two of which I have noted in earlier posts that differ dramatically in terms of how the Bible is to be treated.

BrianCalgary

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well, I can understand their problems with the decisions made by a Roman Emperor and a group of church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD with regard to how the Trinity was to be defined vis-a-vis Christ. The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, and was coined almost two centuries after the death of Christ. Furthermore, the Bible is not clear on precisely how God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are to be treated, which was the purpose of the Council to clarify? The assumption is that this human Roman Emperor and group of non-Apostle church leaders were divinely inspired in their interpretations of Bible scripture when resolving the arguments and disputes that had been growing for over three centuries since the death of Christ? (For some reason I have a real problem with a Roman Emperor leading the Council of Nicea, and perhaps influencing the decision process with his obvious superior power)

From what I have read, the Mormons identify with the position held by many early pre-325 AD Christians regarding how God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were treated. So if the Mormons were not Christians due in part to rejecting the decisions of the Council of Nicea, what about those early Christians before 325 AD that held the same or similar belief (as the Mormons do today regarding God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)? Are these pre-325 AD early believers in Christ excluded too from being labeled Christians retroactively, or grandfathered as early Christians, or were never Christians in the first place given the 325 AD decision, or what?

The decisions made by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD seem to be very central to what some have used in this thread to define "Christian." Given its importance, have you found in your studies of the Bible clear agreement between the Apostles themselves (not their later interpreters), regarding precisely how God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were to be treated, and was that clearly consistent with the decisions of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?.

The council of Nicea did not determine that Jesus was God. It affirmed the stance that had been preached by Jesus Himself and by His apostles. the council affirmed that Jesus was one substance with the Father.

Arius had come up with the idea that Jesus was of a different essence. Arius: the Son of God," was not consubstantial or coeternal with God the Father, but that there was once a time, before he was begotten, that he (Jesus) did not exist.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There are several denominations of the Lutheran faith, two of which I have noted in earlier posts that differ dramatically in terms of how the Bible is to be treated.

But they don't differ on the basic tenets of the Christian faith, which is method of salvation and deity of Christ.

Both Lutheran denominations speak of Biblical authority, one says it is a literal teh other says that it is not a science book (Im paraphrasing). Neither positions is at odds with the truth that the Bible is the word of God and that it is complete.

pbuckland05

I have had a good read of the posts for mormons in general they dont care who considers them christian or not, they consider themselves christian and thats what matters most, they try to live Christ like lives as best they can.

philologos

pbuckland05: that's fine. However when the question is asked to Christians that welcomes a discussion and debate.

theguy

pbuckland05 wrote: »

I have had a good read of the posts for mormons in general they dont care who considers them christian or not, they consider themselves christian and thats what matters most, they try to live Christ like lives as best they can.

It is true that it matters not if people to not see mormons as Christian, but nonetheless they spend a great deal of time trying to be seen as such. I think maybe its the way people define what it is to be a christian that causes the misunderstanding between faiths.

Fanny Cradock

kevinbreen wrote: »

Listen here now, listen very carefully ...

Not an auspicious start. Read the charter.

Sariah

I am a mormon

I am a christian

The correct name for my faith is - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints - the clue in the title.

My whole life is centred on the teachings of Jesus Christ

He is the head of our church

He is the foundation of my faith

I study from the old Testament, New Testament and Book of Mormon.

I believe in the Bible in so far as it is correctly translated.

Maybe the definition of christian that is commonly used is too narrow.

I term myself a Christian as I am a devout follower of Christ and I have taken his name upon me and try to remember him in everything I do.

alex73

Sariah wrote: »

I am a mormon

I am a christian

The correct name for my faith is - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints - the clue in the title.

My whole life is centred on the teachings of Jesus Christ

He is the head of our church

He is the foundation of my faith

I study from the old Testament, New Testament and Book of Mormon.

I believe in the Bible in so far as it is correctly translated.

Maybe the definition of christian that is commonly used is too narrow.

I term myself a Christian as I am a devout follower of Christ and I have taken his name upon me and try to remember him in everything I do.

TV series BIG LOVE was very good, I came to have a better understanding of Mormon faith.