Need A Little Help

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Setheus@Apr 14 2005, 11:55 AM

The point is You always come to the Mormon site.  If you have found truth and peace elsewhere why do you return "here"?

Go away and make your self a happier person.  You deserve it. :)

I would think Setheus it is obvious - because he wants to come here, like most of us posters.

From what I perceive - Jason seems quite happy. Are you happy Setheus?

If Jason's posts are bugging you why don't you just not read them? Wait, I know why - because you can't help it - you want to read them.

M.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex, a couple of points in response:

1. I imagine the apostles were glad the Sanhedrin didn't find Gamaliel's advice so foolish.

2.

Course you and I both know that we pushed Mormonism on many unwilling listeners.

I knocked on lots of doors, the same way Mexican gardeners knock on mine. If that is "pushing," then the Apostles were pushy people, too. People who wanted to listen, listened; the rest either declined politely or told me to "fara i rassgat", a salutation that I did not return.

3. As for the Mormon teaching of a general apostasy, that's as close as your criticism comes to being on point. But there's a difference between focusing on one particular denomination and actively combating it (as you're doing here, far more than you're proselytizing for Orthodoxy) and offering your own message as a remedy for deficiencies in all other religions. Again, to the extent that the Apostles preached the Christian gospel, they implied that all other religions were false, or at least not as true as Christianity. While it's true that the early Christians did take some potshots at Judaism, Greco-Roman paganism, and whoever the heck the Nicolaitans were, they spent far more effort promoting their own positive message.

I do think there's a strong case to be made that making and eating baklava comes close to idolatry; it's just too sensually delightful to be morally proper.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Maureen+Apr 14 2005, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Apr 14 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Setheus@Apr 14 2005, 11:55 AM

The point is You always come to the Mormon site.  If you have found truth and peace elsewhere why do you return "here"?

Go away and make your self a happier person.  You deserve it. :)

I would think Setheus it is obvious - because he wants to come here, like most of us posters.

From what I perceive - Jason seems quite happy. Are you happy Setheus?

If Jason's posts are bugging you why don't you just not read them? Wait, I know why - because you can't help it - you want to read them.

M.

You sure twisted that good. LOL You are making the point against Setheus on a board he is in accord with.

You and Ex are against what we believe here and quite often attack us on our own turf. Setheus' point was....if you don't like our beliefs, go where you are comfortable.

The fact that you are comfortable being on a board strickly to be a nemesis ~ attests

to poor character on your part not Setheus'.

Keep that cork screw action on the screwy anti board will ya?

[Jason]

The point is You always come to the Mormon site. If you have found truth and peace elsewhere why do you return "here"?

Why do mormon missionaries knock on the same doors year after year? There are a few here who's beliefs in Mormonism are lessening. Im here to help them (if they want it) find something better for their lives. In the case of Taoist Saint, we can share those teachings from the East that we find mutually inspiring. In the case of sgallan, offering words of encouragement not to dispair at losing his spiritual foundation. In the case of others Im not going to mention, giving them something less tedius to think about than the semi-annual general conference sessions.

In your case, just getting under your skin when your have run out of things to contribute.

-----------------

Mormons are best described as freethinkers.........................on a short leash.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 14 2005, 11:45 AM

I think he is referring to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob/ the creator.

Believing different things about that God doesn't make it necessary to believe they are two different Gods.

Sharing the same name doesn't mean you share the same God.

That's true; I'm not Thomas the Apostle even though I share his name. But I've never been a big fan of this "different God/different Jesus" business. Because two people have different perceptions of a person's attributes doesn't mean they're perceiving different people. I think T.S. Eliot was an overrated poseur; others think he was a genius, but we're still talking about the same guy. Likewise, just because Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Orthodox believe that it proceeds from the Father alone (if I understand the filoque schism correctly) doesn't mean that those branches of Christianity believe in a different Holy Spirit.

I believe in Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Son of God born in Bethlehem, who died about 33 years later and rose on the third day. I like to ask Baptists, etc. who tell me "my Jesus is a different Jesus" which one they believe in.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Why do mormon missionaries knock on the same doors year after year?

Because 19-year-olds are too disorganized to keep track of what streets were tracted by missionaries three years ago -- let alone keep track of when new people move in behind those previously-tracted doors. That said, I hate tracting with a passion like a consuming flame and would be happy to see it left to the JWs.

I thought it was hilarious, though, when Kang and Kodos came to Homer's door and he said "oh no ... Mormons!"

[Jason]

PD,

1. I imagine the apostles were glad the Sanhedrin didn't find Gamaliel's advice so foolish.

No doubt why Luke (or whoever wrote the Acts) included said comment into his history. Im glad that they took his advice, though I question whether it should be universally applied. (As Im sure you can understand.)

I knocked on lots of doors, the same way Mexican gardeners knock on mine. If that is "pushing," then the Apostles were pushy people, too. People who wanted to listen, listened; the rest either declined politely or told me to "fara i rassgat", a salutation that I did not return.

Im specifically thinking of the times when we made half asleep mexican farm workers listen to our discussions week after week, even when they rather politely told us to come back "manana". It took me a long time to finally understand that "tomorrow" didn't mean come back tomorrow, but was a polilte way of saying, "never".

3. As for the Mormon teaching of a general apostasy, that's as close as your criticism comes to being on point. But there's a difference between focusing on one particular denomination and actively combating it (as you're doing here, far more than you're proselytizing for Orthodoxy) and offering your own message as a remedy for deficiencies in all other religions. Again, to the extent that the Apostles preached the Christian gospel, they implied that all other religions were false, or at least not as true as Christianity. While it's true that the early Christians did take some potshots at Judaism, Greco-Roman paganism, and whoever the heck the Nicolaitans were, they spent far more effort promoting their own positive message.

I disagree. Most of the first four centuries was devoted to combatting heresy (whether the Nicolatians, various other Gnostics, Montanists, etc.). The Apostolic Fathers are notorius for their anti heretical writings (I personally love Sts Ignatius of Antioch and Irneaus of Lyons).

Sharing the gospel, In my view, always coincides with pointing out the flaws of other faiths in comparison. That's why we shared the "great apostasy" in the discussions. To point out the flaws of all other faiths in comparison to Mormonism.

I do think there's a strong case to be made that making and eating baklava comes close to idolatry; it's just too sensually delightful to be morally proper. 

[Jason]

That's true; I'm not Thomas the Apostle even though I share his name. But I've never been a big fan of this "different God/different Jesus" business. Because two people have different perceptions of a person's attributes doesn't mean they're perceiving different people. I think T.S. Eliot was an overrated poseur; others think he was a genius, but we're still talking about the same guy.

I understand your view, and once felt the same. But truly, it is the theology behind said person that is at stake. While we both accept the existence of said person, our understandings are fundamentally at odds with each other. So much so that take away the name, and you have different Gods.

I feel that most Mormons don't understand that.

Likewise, just because Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Orthodox believe that it proceeds from the Father alone (if I understand the filoque schism correctly) doesn't mean that those branches of Christianity believe in a different Holy Spirit.

Actually it does change the nature of the Holy Spirit, because if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but neither the Son nor the Father proceed from the Holy Spirit, you've just created a 2nd class deity in the person of the Holy Spirit. Whereas, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then both the Son (who is begotton not made) and the Spirit are on an equal plane with each other, as well as the Father.

St. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a great book entitled "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" that will explain the Orthodox position with greater clarity.

I believe in Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Son of God born in Bethlehem, who died about 33 years later and rose on the third day. I like to ask Baptists, etc. who tell me "my Jesus is a different Jesus" which one they believe in.

Again, it's not the man we disagree on, it's the divine attributes attested to Him that makes our positions irreconcilable.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Jason]

You've got a tough road ahead of you, TS. I wish you the best.

[ThunderFire]

Originally posted by Amillia@Apr 14 2005, 12:42 PM

Believing different things about that God doesn't make it necessary to believe they are two different Gods.

You need to be careful here, the Muslims believe there was a "historical" Jesus who was a mighty prophet, the LDS believe he is the son of an exalted being from Kolab, and other denominational Christians believe that Jesus is without beginning or end. So while all three believe in a "historical" Jesus they do not see him in the same light. We can agree that all believe in the existence of a God, but it is inappropriate to state that Jews and LDS believe in the "same" God.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Amillia@Apr 14 2005, 12:10 PM

You sure twisted that good. LOL You are making the point against Setheus on a board he is in accord with.

Really?! I thought I was just pointing out that we all choose to do things, more or less because we want to.

You and Ex are against what we believe here and quite often attack us on our own turf.

Attack you say. Give me an example where I have attacked anyone on this forum.

Setheus' point was....if you don't like our beliefs, go where you are comfortable.

I’ve never said I don’t like your beliefs. I’ve stated I don’t agree with some of them (as in I could not believe some of them). But I don’t see how just because I don’t agree with everything you believe means that I’m not welcome. Believe me Amillia, there are LDS on this board that I’m positive do not agree with everything you say.

The fact that you are comfortable being on a board strickly to be a  nemesis  ~ attests to poor character on your part not Setheus'.

Show me where I have been a nemesis to this board.

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ThunderFire+Apr 14 2005, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThunderFire @ Apr 14 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Apr 14 2005, 12:42 PM

Believing different things about that God doesn't make it necessary to believe they are two different Gods.

You need to be careful here, the Muslims believe there was a "historical" Jesus who was a mighty prophet, the LDS believe he is the son of an exalted being from Kolab, and other denominational Christians believe that Jesus is without beginning or end. So while all three believe in a "historical" Jesus they do not see him in the same light. We can agree that all believe in the existence of a God, but it is inappropriate to state that Jews and LDS believe in the "same" God.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

Semantics. I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes.

In any event, as James points out, even the devils know who Jesus is, and tremble. The key thing is what you do with the knowledge you have.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 14 2005, 12:33 PM

That's true; I'm not Thomas the Apostle even though I share his name. But I've never been a big fan of this "different God/different Jesus" business. Because two people have different perceptions of a person's attributes doesn't mean they're perceiving different people. I think T.S. Eliot was an overrated poseur; others think he was a genius, but we're still talking about the same guy.

I understand your view, and once felt the same. But truly, it is the theology behind said person that is at stake. While we both accept the existence of said person, our understandings are fundamentally at odds with each other. So much so that take away the name, and you have different Gods.

I feel that most Mormons don't understand that.

Likewise, just because Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Orthodox believe that it proceeds from the Father alone (if I understand the filoque schism correctly) doesn't mean that those branches of Christianity believe in a different Holy Spirit.

Actually it does change the nature of the Holy Spirit, because if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but neither the Son nor the Father proceed from the Holy Spirit, you've just created a 2nd class deity in the person of the Holy Spirit. Whereas, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then both the Son (who is begotton not made) and the Spirit are on an equal plane with each other, as well as the Father.

St. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a great book entitled "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" that will explain the Orthodox position with greater clarity.

I believe in Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Son of God born in Bethlehem, who died about 33 years later and rose on the third day. I like to ask Baptists, etc. who tell me "my Jesus is a different Jesus" which one they believe in.

Again, it's not the man we disagree on, it's the divine attributes attested to Him that makes our positions irreconcilable.

Interesting. So you do believe that Catholics and Orthodox worship a different God because of their different perceptions of the attributes of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't that make the late Pope an idolator, in the eyes of the Orthodox?

Second point: Whether Mormon doctrine differs radically or slightly from creedal Christianity depends on who you ask and from which source you take Mormon doctrine. Mormonism makes this difficult because it has come to focus so exclusively on orthopraxy (where Mormons and Orthodox would probably not greatly differ, except possibly in the ouzo department) that nobody really knows what the heck the official Mormon teaching on the nature of God is anyway. Is God an exalted man, who was once less than God? "I don't know if we teach that." Or is and was He always God, fully perfect and incapable of change, including further progression, as the Book of Mormon seems to indicate?

If you take away all the speculative teachings of Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo period, Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt -- and the Church is certainly ambiguous at the very least as to which of these are still binding doctrine -- you're left with the theology of the Book of Mormon and of the First Vision, which compels you to conclude that the Father and Son are one God, but are individual beings within the Godhead or Trinity. We wouldn't even have to discard the "homoousion" entirely -- the Father and Son are of the same divine substance, even if they are not the same substance.

When you say "I feel most Mormons don't understand [the differences between Mormonism and creedal Christianity]", I would respond that only a few of us theological geeks even really pay much attention to theology at all; few Christians in general know the difference between a monist and a monarchian, or whether they're one of either.

My general rule is that I will not declare any person outside the Christian faith who declares that Jesus is the Son of God; scripture seems to declare this a bare minimum. I'm still on the fence as to whether I ought to be inclusive of monarchians like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Jesus was the Son of God but was not divine, but my inclination is to err on the side of generosity towards anyone who is willing to be called a Christian. You want to only consider Christian those who satisfy a tighter doctrinal test, that's your business. Ultimately, everything shadowy will be cleared up.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 02:21 PM

Semantics. I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes.

I swear I wasn't copying your idea, PD...we seem to have been writing at the same time.

Great minds think alike, I guess.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex, one more:

Sharing the gospel, In my view, always coincides with pointing out the flaws of other faiths in comparison. That's why we shared the "great apostasy" in the discussions. To point out the flaws of all other faiths in comparison to Mormonism.

True, but wouldn't you say that singling out one particular group for special criticism is harsher than making a general criticism of a larger group. It's one thing to make a generalized statement about the universal human tendency towards laziness, but single out, say, Mexicans for that criticism and the fertilizer would rightly hit the propeller.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 14 2005, 02:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 14 2005, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 02:21 PM

Semantics.  I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes.

I swear I wasn't copying your idea, PD...we seem to have been writing at the same time.

Great minds think alike, I guess.

One of the advantages of being a fast typist is that you get to beat other brilliant minds to the punch and claim all the original brilliance-credit for yourself.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 02:38 PM

My general rule is that I will not declare any person outside the Christian faith who declares that Jesus is the Son of God; scripture seems to declare this a bare minimum.

Amen, Duck.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 02:44 PM

One of the advantages of being a fast typist is that you get to beat other brilliant minds to the punch and claim all the original brilliance-credit for yourself.

Of course being a good Christian, you wouldn't do that, right?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 14 2005, 02:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 14 2005, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 02:44 PM

One of the advantages of being a fast typist is that you get to beat other brilliant minds to the punch and claim all the original brilliance-credit for yourself. 

Of course being a good Christian, you wouldn't do that, right?

I'll have to go back over my Bible to find the part where it forbids Christians to type fast...

[pushka]

I must apologise for not replying to the posts generated by my response regarding Baptism by Proxy earlier...I have had an extremely busy few days, and have only just caught up with this thread.

Thank you everybody who has replied. John Doe, you gave an excellent response regarding missionaries teaching in the afterlife...and perhaps you and another poster (sorry if I can't recally all your names) explained about the endowments? (hope that's the correct term) that you give to the deceased on earth, that they can then use in the afterlife if they accept the Gospel taught to them at that time...that makes more sense about why the Baptisms are taking place, and that the deceased still has freedom of choice to accept the teaching/baptism on their behalf or to reject it afterwards.

I've been very interested in the other responses about the differing views of Muslims, Jews and Christians regarding the theology behind God and Jesus Christ, and have to say that I appreciate the views of Thunderfire on this issue.

[ThunderFire]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 03:21 PM

Semantics.  I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes. 

It is only semantics for those who desire to be seen as "equal" with others. I never saw the LDS as being monotheistic anyway with the belief in exaltation (or becoming gods ourselves and creating a new planet with its own race of people). So then LDS beliefs introduce the concept of multitheism or rather having an exalted being who becomes a new creator God for each planet that is inhabited. LDS and others may apply the same attributes to God as you suggest (creation), but they are light years apart in most other regards.

So again it is not semantics when "our" God (per LDS belief) was at one time a created being who became a god over this planet, when other Christians believe that no other god stands before the one true God who has no beginning or end.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire