Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: frog!jp@bespin.harvard.edu (John Pimentel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 08:17:57 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Charles River Data Systems Lines: 89 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article you write: >In article , frog!jp@harvard.harvard.edu writes: > >> Just prior to this post, I was told thru email that in order to be >> Christian, I had to believe that Mary is the Mother of God, if I >> believe everything else and not this I was not a Christian. > > Generally, I skip messages which say "this is a distortion of what I said," >because I can read for myself the original. However, as I made this comment in >email, I feel moved to say, this is an incomplete rendering of my remarks and >constitutes something of a distortion. As I recall, I noted that there were >many things one must believe in order to be a Christian, and acknowledging that >Jesus Christ is God is one of them. > > Mary is the Mother of Jesus. > Jesus is God. > Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Well, since you ID'd yourself, I don't need your permission to post an attribution to you. What you said in your email to me was: Do you believe that 1) Mary is the Mother of God, or 2) Mormons later modified this to Mary is the Mother of the Son of God. If you don't believe the former, you are not a christian. This argument clearly states, to me at least, that the ****ONLY**** qualifier for being Christian is the belief that Mary is the Mother of God. There is nowhere in this equation any other mention of other qualifiers, thus I am left to assume that you mean that this is the only test, with the other qualifiers being thrown out. > I gather by this you mean that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of >Latter-day Saints, which court decisions have consistently recognized as the >Original from which the Utah church split off, practices the true religion, Cindy, I am really glad you brought this up. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a spin-off of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1844 when Joseph Smith was martyered (sp?). Later, when the "original" move to Utah, the courts (or more correctly the government was enforcing a non-polgamy law) and desolved the church's charter/corporation (or whatever you wish to call it) and seized the property, but this didn't work either, the church kept on going. Eventually, the church was able to by back all that was taken from them and the charter was reinstated. To my knowledge the church is recorded to have been formed in 1830. Unless some new rules of math come into play, I would suspect that 1830 AD comes before 1844 AD. Wouldn't you say?. >one Joseph Smith began. Of course, you argument might be (unless you >are Reorganized), "Just because they're earlier doesn't mean they're right, To set the record straight, I seriously doubt it will effect your narrow view of reality, the Reorganized started because they felt the Leadership should be a blood line, not a God called and appointed line. Later, other reasons for their existance where needed to justify why they in existance. Currently, they have 600,000 members and we have 7.5 million. BTW, polygamy was practiced by and is still practiced by citizens of the US who were/are not members. They were/are not sought after, the reason lies elsewhere as to the government's excuse for the confiscation. Your signature is nice, but you forgot to mentioned your church which spun off (unauthorized) from the Church of England which spun off the Roman Catholic Church (unauthorized). Just thought I'd let you know you are member of an unauthorized church, unless you care to tell me that you (your church) obtained authority from the Bible. Or should I say that you were in existence since the time of Christ? --- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered. [I allowed this response because the original was about as ill-tempered. However both of them fail to show the respect I would like to see among participants. --clh]