The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Northern Davincia]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was in the presence of a biblical scholar. Here I ( and apparently almost the entirety of every practicing Christian and Jew over the last 3,000 years ) was thinking the divine instructions found in Leviticus ( which it is made clear throughout the entire book and in exodus ) were, in fact divine.

Thank goodness that a 16 year old atheist on the internet with a minecraft flag came along and corrected all that :^).

FTFY, as it was my 16th birthday a week ago

EDIT: Also, to back this up, biblical-era Judaism was a typical Iron Age cult based around sacrificing animals to a jealous sky god and everything. Scripture-based Judaism didn't begin until centuries after the Bible says Moses received the Torah.

These strawmen are low-quality. But to take the bait so that others won't have to, ancient Judaism was not based around animal sacrifice.

I merely offered more rationale to that decision based on concrete theological reasons. It is obviously better to be baptised in the name of God and not a heretical version.

Says the heretic.

Irony is best served in spades.

[Hakons]

I'm reading City of God right now

Nice, I have that on my Kindle but haven't read it yet! I need to finish "The Return of the Prodigal Son" that my spiritual director recommended first before I dig into that. Augustine's Confessions was the work that brought me home.

The chapters against paganism aren't too relevant, but the theodicy is great to learn, since many people struggle with that and lose faith because they don't understand why evil exists. It's also a long series, and I've only read the first book, so I still have a lot to read. St. Augustine is well versed in scripture and the classic writings of the time. He references a biblical passage, a pagan allegory, or a classical philosopher nearly every few sentences. This contrasts a lot with modern writers, who tend to base nearly everything on opinion or personal rationalization.

[Tarsonis]

FTFY, as it was my 16th birthday a week ago

EDIT: Also, to back this up, biblical-era Judaism was a typical Iron Age cult based around sacrificing animals to a jealous sky god and everything. Scripture-based Judaism didn't begin until centuries after the Bible says Moses received the Torah.

These strawmen are low-quality. But to take the bait so that others won't have to, ancient Judaism was not based around animal sacrifice.

Ehhhhh, yes it was. Granted Judaism has emphasized different things over different periods, with each group in control during those periods accusing the other groups of other periods of abandoning true religion, but the sacrificial practices have always been a crucial component to Judaic faith. From Abraham offering his best sheep to El Shaddai, as well as Isaac and the Ram in Isaacs place, then to Moses and the Passover, the tabernacle, the temple cult, and the Deuteronimists, all the way up to Christ.

[Hakons]

I didn't "lob them up there." I advocated for a trinitarian baptism, but apparently that was too much for your dogmatism. The pasta chain is funny. What started it was annoying and pointless.

And you don't think Auze saw your post as annoying an pointless, and was frustrated at you, the exact same way you're frustrated at me?

And yes you did lob that up there. You can't criticize another denomination of abandoning the Gospel without opening yourself up to the same attack from others who hold the same opinion of your denomination. Regardless of what I think of Mormonism, your critical interjections were not solicited nor wanted. I showed the same amount of dogmatism that you showed Auze. If your house is made from such fragile glass, you really shouldn't throw stones.

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

[New Vetalia]

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

Yes, that's correct. In order for a person to be validly baptized a Christian it must be a baptism using: the matter of water that is poured, sprinkled or immersed, with the form "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and and of the Holy Spirit" and the intention that the person be baptized as a Christian. This is true across the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches from the Apostolic Age to the present without exception...this is the one thing all Christians regardless of denomination agree on. If it doesn't meet these criteria, it's not valid.

[Tarsonis]

And you don't think Auze saw your post as annoying an pointless, and was frustrated at you, the exact same way you're frustrated at me?

And yes you did lob that up there. You can't criticize another denomination of abandoning the Gospel without opening yourself up to the same attack from others who hold the same opinion of your denomination. Regardless of what I think of Mormonism, your critical interjections were not solicited nor wanted. I showed the same amount of dogmatism that you showed Auze. If your house is made from such fragile glass, you really shouldn't throw stones.

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

Sure you didn't say Methodism specifically, but Protestantism is still a loose association of those denominations, joined in opposition to the the Apostolic Churches.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

No, you didn't rationalize what Guelder was saying. Guelder has expressed his desire to join LDS, and Auze was trying to assist him. You attempted to disuade him from this goal, by calling the Mormon church heretics who have forsaken the Holy Spirit.

We may agree on that, but they do not. Thus, out of context from a lengthy debate, you assertion was biased dogmatism. You're only insisting your actions were in the right, because it's what you believe. But when someone who believes differently than you, hits you back with the exact same argument, you have a hissy fit. Essentially you inserted yourself into a situation you weren't a part of, and engaged in a line of dialogue offensive to the people involved. It's one thing to poke at Mormonism in the context of interdenominational debate that occurs in this thread, it's another to directly disparage another persons religious beliefs without regard to their personhood. And then, you took offense when it was done to you and only when it was done to you. You didn't mind when it was done to me or anyone else. You'll disparage the beliefs of others but God forbid someone yours.

Don't call your hypocrisy, Christianity, it's anything but.

[Northern Davincia]

These strawmen are low-quality. But to take the bait so that others won't have to, ancient Judaism was not based around animal sacrifice.

Ehhhhh, yes it was. Granted Judaism has emphasized different things over different periods, with each group in control during those periods accusing the other groups of other periods of abandoning true religion, but the sacrificial practices have always been a crucial component to Judaic faith. From Abraham offering his best sheep to El Shaddai, as well as Isaac and the Ram in Isaacs place, then to Moses and the Passover, the tabernacle, the temple cult, and the Deuteronimists, all the way up to Christ.

I'm not saying it's unimportant, but animal sacrifice was one form of worship out of many. The roots of our faith is based in glorifying God.

[Tarsonis]

Ehhhhh, yes it was. Granted Judaism has emphasized different things over different periods, with each group in control during those periods accusing the other groups of other periods of abandoning true religion, but the sacrificial practices have always been a crucial component to Judaic faith. From Abraham offering his best sheep to El Shaddai, as well as Isaac and the Ram in Isaacs place, then to Moses and the Passover, the tabernacle, the temple cult, and the Deuteronimists, all the way up to Christ.

I'm not saying it's unimportant, but animal sacrifice was one form of worship out of many. The roots of our faith is based in glorifying God.

Yes, but it was a central component in that endeavor. You're seriously undervaluing its role. Hell the entire reason Israel fell to the assyrians was because of sacrifice violations. The sacrificial systems were central to ancient Judaism and is a key component of Christian soteriology. In fact, it's largely modern Judaism which has moved away from the sacrificial practice, largely out of necessity.


The centrality of sacrifice to ancient judaism doesn't undermine the authenticity of the religion.

[Hakons]

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

Sure you didn't say Methodism specifically, but Protestantism is still a loose association of those denominations, joined in opposition to the the Apostolic Churches.

In other words, not my denomination. The PKN is quite different from Methodism. It is some kind of mix between Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism. I wasn't particularly advocating for Protestantism. I was advocating for a Trinitarian baptism, as any Christian should. This baptism would be offered in a PKN Church, and this was part of Guelder's plan. I offered further rationale for that plan.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

No, you didn't rationalize what Guelder was saying. Guelder has expressed his desire to join LDS, and Auze was trying to assist him. You attempted to disuade him from this goal, by calling the Mormon church heretics who have forsaken the Holy Spirit.

I began my post saying Guelder should choose the Church that God leads him to. I then explained why Trinitarian baptism was preferable.

We may agree on that, but they do not. Thus, out of context from a lengthy debate, you assertion was biased dogmatism.

Trinitarianism is not "biased dogmatism," it's established Christian theology.

You're only insisting your actions were in the right, because it's what you believe. But when someone who believes differently than you, hits you back with the exact same argument, you have a hissy fit.

I'm not aware of having a "hissy fit." I got mad because, like you are doing now, misrepresented my post. I'm sorry if I mislead you.

Essentially you inserted yourself into a situation you weren't a part of, and engaged in a line of dialogue offensive to the people involved.

Discussing Christianity in the Christian Discussion Thread is certainly something I can take part of. I don't believe the nature of God that is known to all Christians is offensive. If I did offend anyone, I apologize.

It's one thing to poke at Mormonism in the context of interdenominational debate that occurs in this thread, it's another to directly disparage another persons religious beliefs without regard to their personhood.

I don't see how I "disparaged" someone else's beliefs. It is true that Mormons forsake the Trinity. I don't see how this is different from the common interdenominational debate.

And then, you took offense when it was done to you and only when it was done to you. You didn't mind when it was done to me or anyone else. You'll disparage the beliefs of others but God forbid someone yours.

I took offense because you thought I was swooping in for my denomination. I clearly wasn't, since I'm not part of the PKN, and I was encouraging Trinitarian baptism, not Protestantism.

Don't call your hypocrisy, Christianity, it's anything but.

You know full well I was referring to Trinitarian baptism when I said "this is Christianity." It's not dogmatic to advocate for a Trinitarian baptism, it's Christian to do so.

I'm really quite sick of this. This is going nowhere and should be ended.

[Durzan]

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

Sure you didn't say Methodism specifically, but Protestantism is still a loose association of those denominations, joined in opposition to the the Apostolic Churches.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

No, you didn't rationalize what Guelder was saying. Guelder has expressed his desire to join LDS, and Auze was trying to assist him. You attempted to disuade him from this goal, by calling the Mormon church heretics who have forsaken the Holy Spirit.

We may agree on that, but they do not. Thus, out of context from a lengthy debate, you assertion was biased dogmatism. You're only insisting your actions were in the right, because it's what you believe. But when someone who believes differently than you, hits you back with the exact same argument, you have a hissy fit. Essentially you inserted yourself into a situation you weren't a part of, and engaged in a line of dialogue offensive to the people involved. It's one thing to poke at Mormonism in the context of interdenominational debate that occurs in this thread, it's another to directly disparage another persons religious beliefs without regard to their personhood. And then, you took offense when it was done to you and only when it was done to you. You didn't mind when it was done to me or anyone else. You'll disparage the beliefs of others but God forbid someone yours.

Don't call your hypocrisy, Christianity, it's anything but.

You tell 'em brother!

*Ahem*

I am a Mormon. We do baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I would appreciate some degree of respect when talking about my denomination, as I am sure you would as well. We see ourselves as christian, as He is a central figure in our religion. We believe that Christ died for our sins, we believe that God saves us with grace (though Works are important as well, but thats for another discussion), we believe in the Sacrament (What you guys would call communion), in Baptism by emersion, etc.

Honestly, apart from the details, we do have many of the same broad strokes of Christianity built into our beliefs as other churches do. The differences appear significant, but if you look closely, you can see that we aren't really that different (save for stuff that uniquely belongs to us). I wouldn't have been able to recognize that had I not taken a Religious History course at BYUI during the fall semester of last year (as part of that we visited parts of Europe).

Anyway, the fact that we believe in the Godhead verses the trinity is semantics at best for a nice chunk of us, and a confusion. The details are different, but the basic concepts do have their parallels. To us, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals united in mind and purpose. They think and act as one. The Father and the Son have resurrected bodies of flesh and bone (note the distinction, we do not say they have blood; resurrected beings cannot die, or so we think) that look like that of a man (or rather, we humans are made in the literal Image of God). The Holy Ghost however remains a personage of spirit (IE, he's non-coporeal) so he can dwell in the hearts of men.

[Salus Maior]

So, I may finally be starting RCIA soon.

[Salus Maior]

I wasn't advocating for my denomination.

Sure you didn't say Methodism specifically, but Protestantism is still a loose association of those denominations, joined in opposition to the the Apostolic Churches.

I was further rationalizing what Guelder was already saying. I was merely suggesting a Christian baptism, which we know is in the name of the triune God, and no other. That isn't dogmatism. That's Christianity.

No, you didn't rationalize what Guelder was saying. Guelder has expressed his desire to join LDS, and Auze was trying to assist him. You attempted to disuade him from this goal, by calling the Mormon church heretics who have forsaken the Holy Spirit.

We may agree on that, but they do not. Thus, out of context from a lengthy debate, you assertion was biased dogmatism. You're only insisting your actions were in the right, because it's what you believe. But when someone who believes differently than you, hits you back with the exact same argument, you have a hissy fit. Essentially you inserted yourself into a situation you weren't a part of, and engaged in a line of dialogue offensive to the people involved. It's one thing to poke at Mormonism in the context of interdenominational debate that occurs in this thread, it's another to directly disparage another persons religious beliefs without regard to their personhood. And then, you took offense when it was done to you and only when it was done to you. You didn't mind when it was done to me or anyone else. You'll disparage the beliefs of others but God forbid someone yours.

Don't call your hypocrisy, Christianity, it's anything but.

To be fair, he wasn't advocating for Protestantism necessarily either. He was simply advocating for Trinitarianism.

[Salus Maior]

Anyway, the fact that we believe in the Godhead verses the trinity is semantics at best for a nice chunk of us, and a confusion. The details are different, but the basic concepts do have their parallels. To us, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals united in mind and purpose. They think and act as one. The Father and the Son have resurrected bodies of flesh and bone (note the distinction, we do not say they have blood; resurrected beings cannot die, or so we think) that look like that of a man (or rather, we humans are made in the literal Image of God). The Holy Ghost however remains a personage of spirit (IE, he's non-coporeal) so he can dwell in the hearts of men.

Goodness, the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism sure do pile up.

[Durzan]

Anyway, the fact that we believe in the Godhead verses the trinity is semantics at best for a nice chunk of us, and a confusion. The details are different, but the basic concepts do have their parallels. To us, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals united in mind and purpose. They think and act as one. The Father and the Son have resurrected bodies of flesh and bone (note the distinction, we do not say they have blood; resurrected beings cannot die, or so we think) that look like that of a man (or rather, we humans are made in the literal Image of God). The Holy Ghost however remains a personage of spirit (IE, he's non-coporeal) so he can dwell in the hearts of men.

Goodness, the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism sure do pile up.

Since this is the internet (can't read someone's body-language or tone of voice via text alone), I can't tell for sure if you were being sarcastic or not.

What do you expect? Mormonism branched off from Restorationist Protestantism/Evangelicalism, so of course you would see the obvious differences. However, if you know what to look for you can still see the similarities in the broad strokes. Like two trees whom have a common ancestor yet have adapted uniquely to their environment, the roots and core of mormonism and protestantism are fundamentally the same in nature, even though the trunk, branches, and leaves have a different color and texture. We just have different understandings of similar knowledge and context.

If you boil down the two doctrines, the basic points come down to the following: God is made up of three beings who are united in some form or fashion (IE what the whole "being One" thing was trying to convey), and are made up of the same material. He is unknowable to mortals without help from divine aid (which we Mormons clearly claim).

Trinitarianism sees God as this nebulous and unknowable being, who is somehow 3 beings yet one individual, made up of some unknowable substance, that is impossible to understand or comprehend (even just a little bit)... and yet doing so is a necessary step for salvation (Accepting Christ as your savior involves this to one degree or the other).

The difference is that all that happened for us is that said nebulousness was cleared away by God himself, and additional clarification and understand was provided. The Godhead still works together as one and are made up of the same base substance (Intelligences is what we call it). The Father and the Son are just in a more advanced state of being than the Holy Ghost is as he needs to remain just a spirit in order to accomplish and fulfill His area of responsibility.

Our theology just so happens to take into account knowledge that we believe to be of a more recent origin. (Never mind the fact that said information may have been revealed and lost multiple times in the past)

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So I was being really genuine yesterday when I said that god helped me via ODSP.

Thank you again everyone.

[Durzan]

So I was being really genuine yesterday when I said that god helped me via ODSP.

Thank you again everyone.

Your welcome, I guess.

[Salus Maior]

1.I can't tell if that is sarcasm or a genuine statement.

What do you expect? Mormonism branched off from Restorationist Protestantism/Evangelicalism, so of course you would see the obvious differences. However, if you know what to look for you can still see the similarities in the broad strokes. Like two trees whom have a common ancestor yet have adapted uniquely to their environment, the roots and core of mormonism and protestantism are fundamentally the same in nature, even though the trunk, branches, and leaves have a different color and texture. We just have different understandings of similar knowledge and context.

If you boil down the two doctrines, the basic points come down to the following: God is made up of three beings who are united in some form or fashion (IE what the whole "being One" thing was trying to convey), and are made up of the same material. He is unknowable to mortals without help from divine aid (which we Mormons clearly claim).

Trinitarianism sees God as this nebulous and unknowable being, who is somehow 3 beings yet one individual, made up of some unknowable substance, that is impossible to understand or comprehend (even just a little bit)... and yet doing so is a necessary step for salvation (Accepting Christ as your savior involves this to one degree or the other).

2.The difference is that all that happened for us is that said nebulousness was cleared away by God himself, and additional clarification and understand was provided. The Godhead still works together as one and are made up of the same base substance (Intelligences is what we call it). The Father and the Son are just in a more advanced state of being than the Holy Ghost is as he needs to remain just a spirit in order to accomplish and fulfill His area of responsibility.

Our theology just so happens to take into account knowledge that we believe to be of a more recent origin. (Never mind the fact that said information may have been revealed and lost multiple times in the past)

I was being sarcastic.

1.And you could say something similar about Islam and Christianity, or Judaism and Christianity (and people certainly try to), "Oh, we believe similarly enough so we might as well be the same thing". The problem with the Mormon definition is that it's tantamount to polytheism, and thus is anathema to the historical Christian faith (of course, to make up for that LDS and Restorationists in general make the ridiculous assertion that essentially all of Christian history and theology through the millennia doesn't count except for their particular invented ideas regardless of whether such is evident in Scripture or tradition). That God is incomprehensible is not something that was invented as a part of Trinitarianism, it's something that has always existed as part of belief in God, including in the Old Testament.

To fully understand the Trinity or any number of deep theological topics is not a necessary part of salvation (if that were the case pretty much nobody would be), accepting however the Trinity is an important part of Christian practice and does tie into proper worship.

2. Haha, no it wasn't. Joseph Smith isn't God, and his credentials as a trustworthy spiritual leader is wide open to question and criticism as are his claims.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So I was being really genuine yesterday when I said that god helped me via ODSP.

Thank you again everyone.

Your welcome, I guess.

It is via the virtue of Charity that I am blessed with the money I need.

God bless the Provence of Ontario.

[Lower Nubia]

Goodness, the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism sure do pile up.

Since this is the internet (can't read someone's body-language or tone of voice via text alone), I can't tell for sure if you were being sarcastic or not.

What do you expect? Mormonism branched off from Restorationist Protestantism/Evangelicalism, so of course you would see the obvious differences. However, if you know what to look for you can still see the similarities in the broad strokes. Like two trees whom have a common ancestor yet have adapted uniquely to their environment, the roots and core of mormonism and protestantism are fundamentally the same in nature, even though the trunk, branches, and leaves have a different color and texture. We just have different understandings of similar knowledge and context.

Fundamentals, however, assume specific constructs, differing in those constructs eliminates the position as fundamental. The virgin birth is fundamental to the faith, yet saying Mary became pregnant by sexual intercourse, though the birth of God, and the same parent are indeed similarities, it has lost the fundamental characteristics. If the fundamental is trinitarian theology then things which lye beyond that theology, a lack by a single iota in that unity, for example, deems her not fundamental - this distinction is happily summed in the notification and usage of the term heresy, for it is a failure of the fundamentals - even if only by "homoiousian". By your reasoning the God of Christianity and Islam could be mere 'oddities of understanding' in the fundamentals, i.e. a simple quirk in the qualities of the One True God. Yet this could never be accepted, Christianity breaths and lives in the Trinity, she is uttered in her most sacred prayers and halls, and this very nature of God is the source and light of her power.

If you boil down the two doctrines, the basic points come down to the following: God is made up of three beings who are united in some form or fashion (IE what the whole "being One" thing was trying to convey), and are made up of the same material. He is unknowable to mortals without help from divine aid (which we Mormons clearly claim).

Christianity is a religion of specifics, simple platitudes to a common unity lack relevancy, how far can the differences go before they're too much? Yet Christianity for two millennia has deemed that not a single grain can be out of line for the fundamentals.

Trinitarianism sees God as this nebulous and unknowable being, who is somehow 3 beings yet one individual, made up of some unknowable substance, that is impossible to understand or comprehend (even just a little bit)... and yet doing so is a necessary step for salvation (Accepting Christ as your savior involves this to one degree or the other).

Let me be basic here, if I pray tonight and you pray tonight, and assuming, for the blessedness of reason, that both the trinitarian God and the tritheistic Mormon 'God' were to be present and listening. Now hear me out, would the knowable and non-nebulous Mormon God answer in a similar fashion to the Trinitarian God? I.e. with silence; yet the course of events molded to his will? To state that the Trinitarian God is unknowable and nebulous, logically infers that the Mormon concept is somehow more perceivable, and yet, from the cold depths of my heart, I suspect that the Mormon prayer is answered, in a similar fashion to the Trinitarian prayer. In that, of course, that they are answered with silence? If this is the case, is using the terms: "Trinitarianism sees God as this nebulous and unknowable being" Really that relevant? for the Mormon God doesn't seem to answer the proverbial phone with any greater average. Therefore, of course, if the nebulous and unknowable trinitarian God is decided by human perception, so too must the Mormon God's greater perceptibility, for which I ask, as a mere humble request of the far more perceivable God, that he would pick up the bloody telephone when I ring.

The difference is that all that happened for us is that said nebulousness was cleared away by God himself, and additional clarification and understand was provided. The Godhead still works together as one and are made up of the same base substance (Intelligences is what we call it). The Father and the Son are just in a more advanced state of being than the Holy Ghost is as he needs to remain just a spirit in order to accomplish and fulfill His area of responsibility.

This is odd, I wonder what "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person", could mean? How can metaphysical, unrelated beings; bar and allowing the unity of intelligence (which does not denote begotten attributes, only shared ones), how Christ, who having an independent origin of the Holy Father - not eternally begotten by Him (in your theology), could be the express image of a deity which he is not eternally linked too in any way bar in unity of mission, for any greater eternal unity would denote a physical attribute of the other deity to link them (presumably the Father, who would beget the Son, for example) how two independent deities could look a like? What immaterial quality could produce such a reflection in exact likeness between two eternal, yet physically separate, yet materially and spiritually identical beings, while also not creating that identical expression in the Holy Spirit?

Our theology just so happens to take into account knowledge that we believe to be of a more recent origin. (Never mind the fact that said information may have been revealed and lost multiple times in the past)

Nothing was lost, we have no evidence that anything was lost, re-written, modified or made corrupt, which makes me wonder, what needed to be revitalised? Was Christ ineffective the first time? and yet by what premise can a man read with objectivity in interpretation? By which, what method of control or authority is granted divine impeccability to that creed, beyond question begging?

[Huntpublic]

Are we debating Mormonism and Christianity?

Because boy oh boy, I'm not so sure about Mormonism. I know that I'm not a big fan of Polygamy so that definitely shapes my view on Mormonism

[Nordengrund]

Are we debating Mormonism and Christianity?

Because boy oh boy, I'm not so sure about Mormonism. I know that I'm not a big fan of Polygamy so that definitely shapes my view on Mormonism

To be fair, the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy, although some offshoots such as the Fundamentlaist Latter Day Saints still do.

[Huntpublic]

Are we debating Mormonism and Christianity?

Because boy oh boy, I'm not so sure about Mormonism. I know that I'm not a big fan of Polygamy so that definitely shapes my view on Mormonism

To be fair, the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy, although some offshoots such as the Fundamentlaist Latter Day Saints still do.

Okay, to be honest, I don't really get into researching the "LDS Church" or the "FUNdamentalist Latter Day Saints"(even though i vaguely remember hearing about them before), I just focus on the Bible and follow that.

I guess I could almost say I really don't have a denomination. But I do have to be careful about what I get influenced by because of that.

[Luminesa]

Goodness, the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism sure do pile up.

Since this is the internet (can't read someone's body-language or tone of voice via text alone), I can't tell for sure if you were being sarcastic or not.

What do you expect? Mormonism branched off from Restorationist Protestantism/Evangelicalism, so of course you would see the obvious differences. However, if you know what to look for you can still see the similarities in the broad strokes. Like two trees whom have a common ancestor yet have adapted uniquely to their environment, the roots and core of mormonism and protestantism are fundamentally the same in nature, even though the trunk, branches, and leaves have a different color and texture. We just have different understandings of similar knowledge and context.

If you boil down the two doctrines, the basic points come down to the following: God is made up of three beings who are united in some form or fashion (IE what the whole "being One" thing was trying to convey), and are made up of the same material. He is unknowable to mortals without help from divine aid (which we Mormons clearly claim).

Trinitarianism sees God as this nebulous and unknowable being, who is somehow 3 beings yet one individual, made up of some unknowable substance, that is impossible to understand or comprehend (even just a little bit)... and yet doing so is a necessary step for salvation (Accepting Christ as your savior involves this to one degree or the other).

The difference is that all that happened for us is that said nebulousness was cleared away by God himself, and additional clarification and understand was provided. The Godhead still works together as one and are made up of the same base substance (Intelligences is what we call it). The Father and the Son are just in a more advanced state of being than the Holy Ghost is as he needs to remain just a spirit in order to accomplish and fulfill His area of responsibility.

Our theology just so happens to take into account knowledge that we believe to be of a more recent origin. (Never mind the fact that said information may have been revealed and lost multiple times in the past)

Trinitarianism includes lots of very visible imagery for God. He is “the wind” of Genesis, “the fire” in Exodus, “the still, small voice” of Ezekiel...we could go on all day. Trinitarianism is actually unique in that it describes God in very limited terms without making Him a limited being (as in Greek and Egyptian mythology). Furthermore, if we go by the belief that Jesus Christ is God, which is core to Trinitarianism, then God is both fully divine and fully human without either nature cancelling the other out. He is not “nebulous” or “unknowable”. He has come down and revealed Himself to us, that we may know His love for us.

[Nordengrund]

To be fair, the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy, although some offshoots such as the Fundamentlaist Latter Day Saints still do.

Okay, to be honest, I don't really get into researching the "LDS Church" or the "FUNdamentalist Latter Day Saints"(even though i vaguely remember hearing about them before), I just focus on the Bible and follow that.

I guess I could almost say I really don't have a denomination. But I do have to be careful about what I get influenced by because of that.

I did consider myself non-denominational for awhile, but in my experience, non-dems are just Southern Baptists with contemporary worship and speaking in tongues. Ironically, I’ve found more fundamentalism in those kinds of churches than I did in traditional SBC ones. Like, “Harry Potter is demonic” kind of fundamentalism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Okay, to be honest, I don't really get into researching the "LDS Church" or the "FUNdamentalist Latter Day Saints"(even though i vaguely remember hearing about them before), I just focus on the Bible and follow that.

I guess I could almost say I really don't have a denomination. But I do have to be careful about what I get influenced by because of that.

I did consider myself non-denominational for awhile, but in my experience, non-dems are just Southern Baptists with contemporary worship and speaking in tongues. Ironically, I’ve found more fundamentalism in those kinds of churches than I did in traditional SBC ones. Like, “Harry Potter is demonic” kind of fundamentalism.

That's kind of weird you haven't found that very much. When I was a kid, the Baptists in town weren't allowed to read Harry Potter because it was about witchcraft.