Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 25 Aug 90 07:49:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@porthos.rutgers.edu Organization: Self Similar Lines: 132 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: |In article , bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: | >A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can | >go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" | >from which the BoM was taken. | | I think that this "advantage" is a bit ficticious. The earliest existing | manuscripts of the NT are copies of copies of copies. Even further, | you have no idea what influences were exerted on the existing written | records. A copy of a copy is better than nothing at all. | >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is | >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being | >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that | >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his | >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a | >Christian religion. | | Well, your sarcasm is duely noted (I promise to count to ten before | I press on: 1, 2, 3, ...). I can't claim to read your mind, but I | suspect that you meant to say polytheistic instead of pantheistic. Right. Sorry. I meant that LDS is the only polytheistic religion which portrays itself as also being a Christian religion. But what sarcasm? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Jesus and Lucifer both "spirit children" of God the Father according to LDS doctrine? Aren't they then both "sons of God the Father?" According to LDS doctrine, isn't Jesus's distinction that of being the first- born (among many)? | The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only | a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one | for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many | seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only | one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. Which is to avoid saying that there is a multiplicity of gods. You seem to be identifying God with "an agenda." So according to Mormon theology, is God some sort of multiple being? Isn't to "act AS *one*" quite a bit different from _being_ *one*? | Worship is reserved to the Father, This then implies that the LDS does not worship either Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. | whereas polytheism usually distributes one's | worship among the several dieties. While a person might hurtle the | term "polythestic" at Mormons, just as they also seem to enjoy taunting | us with the term "cult," I usually shrug it off as the actions of one | more intent on creating barriers rather than bridges. Well, drawing distinctions is not so much _creating_ barriers, as noticing the ones that already exist. Similarly, building bridges is different from ignoring the fact that there is a distance (difference) to span. Polytheism is different from monotheism. Since Christianity is a monotheistic religion and Mormonism is polytheistic I fail to understand how Mormonism can be called a Christian religion. Note that I am not using this a pejorative, there are many non-Christian religions in the world and (at least several) polytheistic religions. What I fail to understand is how the LDS can differ from Christian religions in several of the defining characteristics of Christianity but still claim to be a Christian religion. | To simply scream "Polytheism" is so utterly *shallow* that I can | hardly contain myself. Calm down. I assure you that I didn't scream it. I of course can't know what you _heard_ when you read it. | For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus | and Satan are brothers Is that incorrect? Then who was Lucifer's "spirit father?" Doesn't every being have a "spirit father?" Are you stating that according to Mormon doctrine Jesus and Lucifer are _not_ (spirit) brothers? | (a sort of damned by association argument), Not really. I am merely pointing out that it is at variance with all other Christian teachings that I am aware of. If I am wrong or if you know of any counter-examples, then let me know. | what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal | spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is | free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that | Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! Well, I never referred to _agendas_ at all. In fact, _agendas_ never even crossed my mind. _You_ mentioned agendas. Of course you are free to read anything you like into my post, but you should refrain from implying that something that I _didn't say_ was a lie. That is silly. I guess I agree with you; what I didn't say was a lie. | I would think, that apart from whether Mormonism can be called | Christianity, a more troublesome point would be whether a person | who is so quick to misrepresent (and in such a sarcastic manner) | can be called a Christian. What did I misrepresent? I _may have_ made a mistake, but then again, you didn't refute the `brotherhood' of Jesus and Lucifer, either. Nor did you refute the polytheistic nature of the LDS. You did refute the statement that Jesus and Satan have the "same agenda," but I didn't say that. So it seems that it is _you_ misrepresenting me. Finally, it is _not_ more troublesome what a given individual can be `called' than whether a religion systematically misrepresents itself. Regards, -- [I confess to some sympathy with wcsa in this exchange. It's not as if mainstream Christians were simple monotheists. The question of how the Father and Son can both be God without having two gods, and what the relationship is between the two of them, is a rather involved one, that tries to do justice to a variety of Biblical evidence and Christian experience. It's clear that LDS thought is juggling with the same problems, and trying to avoid going off any of the obvious deep ends. They certainly put the pieces together differently than I do, and I find their picture unacceptable in several ways. But I'm reluctant to look at the complexity and simply say "polytheism". A similar look at mainstream Christianity from, e.g., a Jewish perspective, would likely come to the same conclusion. In fact I find a suspicious similarity between some of wcsa's comments and the Antiochene approach to the Trinity. --clh]