Mormonism is to Christianity what Buddhism is to Hinduism?

[nuclearfuels]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Nuclearfuels, gramatically speaking, the term "Christian" denotes a lifestyle as well as a dogma.  Even if we could get past our devotion to Jesus of Nazareth long enough to acknowledge that maybe some of our non-core teachings take us outside of the ideological ballpark of traditional Christian denominations:  given that where lifestyle is concerned Mormons are out-Christian-ing most self-identified Christians, you can't possibly expect any Mormon to acknowledge their religion as a "rejection of Christianity"--can you?

If you're just trying to mine a quote that you can then take back to your anti-Mormon buddies so that you can all cluck together about how much smarter you are than us heretics, then I suppose I could indulge you with the following: 

"Mormonism certainly arose as a rejection of institutional Christianity.  However, it is merely a refinement of ideological Christianity and a perfection of applied Christianity."

Happy now? 

I get the distinction between "binding authority" (aka "canon") versus "persuasive authority" (ie, statements by individual Church leaders); but on this limited issue I gotta side with Nuclearfuels here.  I don't know that I've ever met, in real life, a Mormon who didn't subscribe to the notion that God attained His current exalted status through some sort of "plan of salvation" that is roughly analagous to the one we believe ourselves to be undergoing--and who didn't therefore strongly suspect, if not outright believe, that God does have His own "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother" out there somewhere.

I would hasten to add, though; that this is not technically polytheism; which is usually construed as entailing the worship (not just acknowledging the existence) of multiple gods.  We might be labeled "henotheists", but I find most discussions along these lines to be awfully pedantic and generally calculated to downplay Mormonism's Christian nature and create an association with bizarre pagan rituals or ideas that just isn't true. 

First of all, you should never agree with me, as people will see this and most likely report you.

As to where we disagree, apostatized Christianity and every other type of false teaching/religion is what the Restoration rejected.  That's the logic of the Restoration's claims which I know to be true. It's the combination of logical deduction and truth through revelation from the Holy Ghost.

Perhaps I'm just argumentative and confrontational but I see no point in trying to claim that" Yes! We too are Christian," to religious groups that will not accept us as Christian.  To me, there's no point trying to get the company of someone who doesn't want your company.  Even if they did accept us, they would quickly reject us as soon as we didn't completely abandon the gospel truths, to please whatever "popular opinion" demanded.

[nuclearfuels]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

If a devout LDS was to visit an ancient or long standing Buddhist grave yard and look around they would see things and wonder where such things had roots in the past.  Likewise Buddhism underwent some rather interesting “transformations” of refinements in the first century BC up through the 3rd and 4^th century BC – similar to Christianity.  It is also interesting that at the end of this cycle of transformation and refinement that much of the great texts being preserved in libraries (such as the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt were destroyed – all about the same time period in history) which were destroyed from Eastern libraries.  Hmmmmm where did the Kings come from???

One of the greatest archeological finds of the most ancient hidden Buddhist manuscripts also contain New Testament texts.  But Christians are not interested in ancient Buddhist archeological finds – they cannot even deal honestly with the Dead Sea Scrolls – calling the texts Essen when many of the scribes at what Christians call Qumran were also at Masada and no one has ever suggested that Masada was Essen.  And the biggest cover up of all – is the ancient name of the settlement – Big hint – it was not Qumran it was Damascus.

My point being my friend nuclearfuels – you do not have to make anything up with wild theories of speculation – a detailed study of history will provide all the fuel to controversy one can handle.

 

The Traveler

True. All from the same source, whether people like it or not

[Just_A_Guy]

41 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

First of all, you should never agree with me, as people will see this and most likely report you.

I gotta put my moderator hat on for a moment and just suggest that this was unnecessary.

Quote

As to where we disagree, apostatized Christianity and every other type of false teaching/religion is what the Restoration rejected.  That's the logic of the Restoration's claims which I know to be true. It's the combination of logical deduction and truth through revelation from the Holy Ghost.

One problem with your suggestion about our supposedly having "rejected" Christianity, is that "Christanity"--even in the mid-nineteenth century--is just too big of an umbrella.  It included people on opposite sides of debate about the nature of the trinity, about universalism, about creationism/evolution, about predestination, about the fall, salvation by grace versus works, about the nature of priesthood, about sola scriptura/continuing revelation, about the mode of baptism, about the virgin birth, and even about the divine nature of Jesus Himself.  Yes, Christianity included people who were wrong about each of these issues--but it also included people who were right about them.  It is one thing to reject false elements of Christianity, or even to reject hypocritical "Christian" adherents or doctrinally unsound "Christian" churches.  But it's quite another to look at that hodge-podge of varying opinions--many of which were right--and nevertheless declare that one rejects it wholesale.

A university student is not "rejecting" his alma mater just because he chose to take classes in history but not in biology, while simultaneously doing a couple of correspondence courses online from some other institution.

Quote

Perhaps I'm just argumentative and confrontational but I see no point in trying to claim that" Yes! We too are Christian," to religious groups that will not accept us as Christian.  To me, there's no point trying to get the company of someone who doesn't want your company.  Even if they did accept us, they would quickly reject us as soon as we didn't completely abandon the gospel truths, to please whatever "popular opinion" demanded.

I agree with you (ulp!  There's that phrase again!) insofar as you're talking about downplaying doctrinal distinctions in the name of ecumenicism.  On the other hand, there's more than a little value to defining ourselves as, first and foremost, "Christians" ("followers of Christ")--as King Benjamin made a point of teaching; and we oughtn't to abandon that label just because it has been co-opted over the last two millennia.  Moreover, excluding Mormonism from the tent of Christianity subjects us to an "otherization" that, under the current social climate, is not generally helpful to our missionary efforts (which is why anti-Mormons are so keen to paint us as non-Christians).

Edited July 15, 2016 by Just_A_Guy