The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Our solar system orbits another solar system which orbits another solar system is what y'all hold, I believe. In the middle is Kolob.

We don't believe that our solar system is orbiting another system. I guess I'd better reread Abraham.

LDS Church leader and historian B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) interpreted Smith's statements to mean that our solar system and its governing "planet" (the Sun) revolved around a star known as Kae-e-vanrash, which itself revolved with its own solar system around a star called Kli-flos-is-es or Hah-ko-kau-beam, which themselves revolve around Kolob, which he characterized as "the great centre of that part of the universe to which our planetary system belongs". Roberts was confident that this hierarchy of stars orbiting other stars would be confirmed by astronomers.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The reason for that is largely that Mormons tend to get a very revisionist and sanitized version of their history and theology compared to the historical truth and historical theology of the LDS movement.

And what is the historical truth and theology of the LDS movement?

That it's a historically extremely violent movement whose leaders have a long-standing tradition of manipulating its followers, whether it be Smiths' "spiritual wifery", or Brigham Young's massacre of emigrants. The Mormons weren't afraid to oppress other people, and they did so routinely. The authorities that cracked down on the early Mormon communities, if not totally justified, had very reasonable fears of what the Mormons were doing, because the Mormons were essentially establishing theocracies on US soil.

[Northern Davincia]

I've noticed that other Christian denominations seem to view Mormons as completely alien

I mean, don't Mormons believe God came from another planet?

What kind of heresy is this?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean, don't Mormons believe God came from another planet?

What kind of heresy is this?

They also believe that God was a man, and that all men can become gods.

[Northern Davincia]

What kind of heresy is this?

They also believe that God was a man, and that all men can become gods.

I've never taken Mormonism seriously but that is downright insulting.

[Corpus Magnus]

We don't believe that our solar system is orbiting another system. I guess I'd better reread Abraham.

LDS Church leader and historian B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) interpreted Smith's statements to mean that our solar system and its governing "planet" (the Sun) revolved around a star known as Kae-e-vanrash, which itself revolved with its own solar system around a star called Kli-flos-is-es or Hah-ko-kau-beam, which themselves revolve around Kolob, which he characterized as "the great centre of that part of the universe to which our planetary system belongs". Roberts was confident that this hierarchy of stars orbiting other stars would be confirmed by astronomers.

Wasn't he one of the more controversial LDS theorists? His work was definitely not considered divine revelation. I don't know anyone who believes this. The story of Kolob was meant to be more of a parable than information about the universe and astronomy, I don't think it was supposed to be interpreted this way.

Do you know what statements he got this out of?

[Corpus Magnus]

And what is the historical truth and theology of the LDS movement?

That it's a historically extremely violent movement whose leaders have a long-standing tradition of manipulating its followers, whether it be Smiths' "spiritual wifery", or Brigham Young's massacre of emigrants. The Mormons weren't afraid to oppress other people, and they did so routinely. The authorities that cracked down on the early Mormon communities, if not totally justified, had very reasonable fears of what the Mormons were doing, because the Mormons were essentially establishing theocracies on US soil.

Could you elaborate more on specific events? I actually don't know as much about LDS history as most other Mormons do, I always focused on theology more than history. Never considered history as important.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That it's a historically extremely violent movement whose leaders have a long-standing tradition of manipulating its followers, whether it be Smiths' "spiritual wifery", or Brigham Young's massacre of emigrants. The Mormons weren't afraid to oppress other people, and they did so routinely. The authorities that cracked down on the early Mormon communities, if not totally justified, had very reasonable fears of what the Mormons were doing, because the Mormons were essentially establishing theocracies on US soil.

Could you elaborate more on specific events? I actually don't know as much about LDS history as most other Mormons do, I always focused on theology more than history. Never considered history as important.

Well, at Nauvoo, Smith became mayor, commander of the militia, and chief justice of the court; when his polygamy (which had been secret) was printed in a newspaper, he had the newspaper's press destroyed by the militia, and this resulted in the state of Illinois sending the militia to arrest him on treason charges (because they had on good word that he had turned the town into a theocracy, or at least a dictatorship), Smith ended up being killed.

Then, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train, at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks began on September 7 and culminated on September 11, 1857, resulting in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district. The militia, officially called the Nauvoo Legion, was composed of southern Utah's Mormon settlers (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS Church). Intending to leave no witnesses and thus prevent reprisals, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children—about 120 men, women, and children in total. Seventeen children, all younger than seven, were spared.

And, of course, in 1863, Brigham Young ( one of the prophets of the LDS movement) said that the penalty for interracial marriage should be death.

[Corpus Magnus]

We don't believe that our solar system is orbiting another system. I guess I'd better reread Abraham.

LDS Church leader and historian B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) interpreted Smith's statements to mean that our solar system and its governing "planet" (the Sun) revolved around a star known as Kae-e-vanrash, which itself revolved with its own solar system around a star called Kli-flos-is-es or Hah-ko-kau-beam, which themselves revolve around Kolob, which he characterized as "the great centre of that part of the universe to which our planetary system belongs". Roberts was confident that this hierarchy of stars orbiting other stars would be confirmed by astronomers.

This website is good. To be honest, there are so many interpretations of what the book of Abraham actually means that there's no real point discussing this. There's also the possibility that Kolob is not a literal planet but was intended purely as a parable. The actual physical existence of Kolob is irrelevant, anyway. Not important to theology.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Kolob

[Constantinopolis]

No. Seventh Day Adventusts are there too. Y'all are the only ones who believe in modern prophets.

Why don't you? I mean, why would divine revelation and prophets just... stop... after thousands of years of it?

Because the purpose of the prophets was to prepare the way and point towards the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. After the Messiah came, there was no need for prophets any more. And there is no need for further divine revelation because everything has already been revealed. After all, God Himself became man and spoke to us. What need is there for God to send more spokespeople after that? Everything that He wanted to say, He said while He was on Earth with us.

Miracles, on the other hand, do continue to happen. God continues to do things. But He doesn't send prophets or divine revelation any more because He already said what He wanted to say.

[Corpus Magnus]

I mean, don't Mormons believe God came from another planet?

What kind of heresy is this?

Ah, Orthodoxy. Or possibly Catholicism, not sure which.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Wasn't he one of the more controversial LDS theorists? His work was definitely not considered divine revelation. I don't know anyone who believes this. The story of Kolob was meant to be more of a parable than information about the universe and astronomy, I don't think it was supposed to be interpreted this way.

Do you know what statements he got this out of?

Controversial? I haven't read anything about that. Leonard J. Arrington called him "the intellectual leader of the Mormon people in the era of Mormonism's finest intellectual attainment." Was he controversial, too? If so, it'd be off to make him your first Church Historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1972 to 1982 and director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History from 1982 until 1986. Not to mention a professor at USU and BYU.

[Constantinopolis]

There is only one true faith, and that is the Orthodox Christian faith. Other forms of Christianity are wrong about various things to a greater or lesser degree, ranging from basically-right-about-everything-except-for-one-tiny-issue (e.g. Oriental Communion) to almost-completely-wrong-in-practically-every-way (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc).

I've noticed that other Christian denominations seem to view Mormons as completely alien, while Mormons view other Christians as very similar. You'd think that we would think you are as wrong as you think we are, but that's not really true.

Well, it's because Mormon beliefs are so different from traditional Christian beliefs that we might as well be talking about two different religions. The differences between the LDS movement and traditional Christianity are almost as big as the differences between Christianity and Islam.

I don't understand why Mormons don't hold a similar view. Is it possible that you don't know how much we disagree with you on theology?

Although I have noticed that Orthodox and Catholic people are a lot more... concerned... about heresies.

Yes. Holding correct theological beliefs is particularly important to us. The ancient Church spent several hundred years in Late Antiquity deciding precisely what the correct theology was, and we hold their decisions in very high regard, so we want to follow them.

[Corpus Magnus]

Could you elaborate more on specific events? I actually don't know as much about LDS history as most other Mormons do, I always focused on theology more than history. Never considered history as important.

Well, at Nauvoo, Smith became mayor, commander of the militia, and chief justice of the court; when his polygamy

Yes, yes, and yes (not sure how any of those are relevant), and yes (I can talk more about polygamy if you want.)

(which had been secret) was printed in a newspaper, he had the newspaper's press destroyed by the militia,

There have been studies that decided that this was actually within Joseph Smith's rights (I can try to find sources if you want.)

and this resulted in the state of Illinois sending the militia to arrest him on treason charges (because they had on good word that he had turned the town into a theocracy, or at least a dictatorship), Smith ended up being killed.

"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race."—Joseph Smith, 1843

Does this sound like a dictator to you?

Then, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train, at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks began on September 7 and culminated on September 11, 1857, resulting in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district. The militia, officially called the Nauvoo Legion, was composed of southern Utah's Mormon settlers (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS Church). Intending to leave no witnesses and thus prevent reprisals, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children—about 120 men, women, and children in total. Seventeen children, all younger than seven, were spared.

...Are you saying that we support the massacre?

And, of course, in 1863, Brigham Young ( one of the prophets of the LDS movement) said that the penalty for interracial marriage should be death.

1. Pretty sure he didn't say that
2. Prophetic fallability
3. Wasn't Brigham Young kind of racist?

All in all, though, why do you care?
Do you think when I go to church each Sunday, I discuss massacring non-members?
Do I spout racism from behind the pulpit?
Do I plot to take over the world and establish a Mormon theocracy?
Do I search the media for articles criticizing Mormons and plot their downfall?
No, I talk about service, and kindness, and charity, and love, and repentance, and God. What horrible thing do you think I am?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race."—Joseph Smith, 1843

Does this sound like a dictator to you?

Actions speak louder than words. The DPRK constitution has an entire chapter dedicated to the rights of citizens, including freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, religion, and petition. How many of these rights do they actually have?

Please explain how Smith was within his rights to destroy the printing press.

[Corpus Magnus]

I've noticed that other Christian denominations seem to view Mormons as completely alien, while Mormons view other Christians as very similar. You'd think that we would think you are as wrong as you think we are, but that's not really true.

Well, it's because Mormon beliefs are so different from traditional Christian beliefs that we might as well be talking about two different religions. The differences between the LDS movement and traditional Christianity are almost as big as the differences between Christianity and Islam.

I don't understand why Mormons don't hold a similar view. Is it possible that you don't know how much we disagree with you on theology?

No... I think it's more that I value similarities more than differences.

If you look at all the posts made on this thread, you'd notice that there are a lot of posts talking about heresy and blasphemy and dissecting other people's religions in order to disprove them. As a Mormon, I don't do that. I would rather talk about my love of God with people than argue about whether God has a physical body or not. It seems to me like when other people think of Mormons, they think about the Godhead and all that historical stuff United Muscovite Nations keeps spouting off about. But when I think of you guys, I just think, They love God. That's a good thing. I am fully aware of how different my religion is than yours, in fact I am reminded of it often. Many people on this thread seem very concerned about the particulars of religion and get riled up with minor differences. I find the differences interesting but not particularly concerning and I don't think they should be a barrier between Mormons and other Christians. I see the core of Christianity, which is Christ and love, and I believe in that. So I don't find myself that different from you.

Although I have noticed that Orthodox and Catholic people are a lot more... concerned... about heresies.

Yes. Holding correct theological beliefs is particularly important to us. The ancient Church spent several hundred years in Late Antiquity deciding precisely what the correct theology was, and we hold their decisions in very high regard, so we want to follow them.[/quote]
I understand that, there have been a lot of religious disputes in Christian history.

What I don't understand is calling my religion heresy whenever I talk. (Not aimed at you.)

[Constantinopolis]

All in all, though, why do you care?
Do you think when I go to church each Sunday, I discuss massacring non-members?
Do I spout racism from behind the pulpit?
Do I plot to take over the world and establish a Mormon theocracy?
Do I search the media for articles criticizing Mormons and plot their downfall?
No, I talk about service, and kindness, and charity, and love, and repentance, and God. What horrible thing do you think I am?

I'm pretty sure that everyone here who has ever interacted with Mormons is aware that Mormons are among the nicest people on the planet. So don't take any of this personally.

The argument isn't that you're doing anything wrong on a personal level. The argument is that the LDS Church has dubious historical origins which indicate that Smith was (to be blunt) a false prophet.

[Corpus Magnus]

"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race."—Joseph Smith, 1843

Does this sound like a dictator to you?

Actions speak louder than words. The DPRK constitution has an entire chapter dedicated to the rights of citizens, including freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, religion, and petition. How many of these rights do they actually have?

Please explain how Smith was within his rights to destroy the printing press.

Upon research the verdict is: It was legal for him to destroy the issue, but it was not legal for him to destroy the printing press. Google for more info if you want to.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/City_of_Nauvoo/Nauvoo_Expositor

Also keep in mind that Smith didn't personally destroy the press, nor was it his own idea or decision.

[Corpus Magnus]

All in all, though, why do you care?
Do you think when I go to church each Sunday, I discuss massacring non-members?
Do I spout racism from behind the pulpit?
Do I plot to take over the world and establish a Mormon theocracy?
Do I search the media for articles criticizing Mormons and plot their downfall?
No, I talk about service, and kindness, and charity, and love, and repentance, and God. What horrible thing do you think I am?

I'm pretty sure that everyone here who has ever interacted with Mormons is aware that Mormons are among the nicest people on the planet. So don't take any of this personally.

The argument isn't that you're doing anything wrong on a personal level. The argument is that the LDS Church has dubious historical origins which indicate that Smith was (to be blunt) a false prophet.

Okay.

Still don't consider the historical origins dubious... feel free to debate with me more on that if you like... but I'd rather agree to disagree, it's obvious that no one is going to agree with me here.

[Corpus Magnus]

Why don't you? I mean, why would divine revelation and prophets just... stop... after thousands of years of it?

Because the purpose of the prophets was to prepare the way and point towards the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. After the Messiah came, there was no need for prophets any more. And there is no need for further divine revelation because everything has already been revealed. After all, God Himself became man and spoke to us. What need is there for God to send more spokespeople after that? Everything that He wanted to say, He said while He was on Earth with us.

Miracles, on the other hand, do continue to happen. God continues to do things. But He doesn't send prophets or divine revelation any more because He already said what He wanted to say.

'Kay. Makes sense (although I do disagree.)

[Northern Davincia]

I understand that, there have been a lot of religious disputes in Christian history.

What I don't understand is calling my religion heresy whenever I talk. (Not aimed at you.)

Your religion is Christianity, which is not heresy. Your branch, however, is heresy because its doctrines are anti-biblical.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, it's because Mormon beliefs are so different from traditional Christian beliefs that we might as well be talking about two different religions. The differences between the LDS movement and traditional Christianity are almost as big as the differences between Christianity and Islam.

I don't understand why Mormons don't hold a similar view. Is it possible that you don't know how much we disagree with you on theology?

No... I think it's more that I value similarities more than differences.

If you look at all the posts made on this thread, you'd notice that there are a lot of posts talking about heresy and blasphemy and dissecting other people's religions in order to disprove them. As a Mormon, I don't do that. I would rather talk about my love of God with people than argue about whether God has a physical body or not. It seems to me like when other people think of Mormons, they think about the Godhead and all that historical stuff United Muscovite Nations keeps spouting off about. But when I think of you guys, I just think, They love God. That's a good thing. I am fully aware of how different my religion is than yours, in fact I am reminded of it often. Many people on this thread seem very concerned about the particulars of religion and get riled up with minor differences. I find the differences interesting but not particularly concerning and I don't think they should be a barrier between Mormons and other Christians. I see the core of Christianity, which is Christ and love, and I believe in that. So I don't find myself that different from you.

On one level, you're right. Although I should say that the main reason this thread is so full of talk about heresy and blasphemy and dissecting other people's religions is because... well, there's not much else to do on an internet forum specifically designed for debate. Whenever we all agree on something, the discussion just dies. Arguing over theology is basically the thing that keeps the thread going.

But the other thing is, we don't argue just for the fun of it. Theology matters. It doesn't matter as much as loving God and your neighbor, of course, but it does matter. The core of Christianity is indeed Christ and love, but there is more to it than just the core.

For example, we Orthodox believe that sins are forgiven through the sacraments of Confession and Communion, administered by a priest of the Orthodox Church, who has valid apostolic succession. So that means that Christians who do not participate in sacramental Confession and Communion, do not benefit from the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God that is communicated through those sacraments. This makes it more difficult for them to be saved. So we are concerned with persuading people to embrace our theology so that they would join the Church and participate in the sacraments and have a better chance of salvation.

Yes. Holding correct theological beliefs is particularly important to us. The ancient Church spent several hundred years in Late Antiquity deciding precisely what the correct theology was, and we hold their decisions in very high regard, so we want to follow them.

I understand that, there have been a lot of religious disputes in Christian history.

What I don't understand is calling my religion heresy whenever I talk. (Not aimed at you.)

"Heresy" simply means "a false teaching that is significant enough to put one's salvation in danger".

[Corpus Magnus]

I understand that, there have been a lot of religious disputes in Christian history.

What I don't understand is calling my religion heresy whenever I talk. (Not aimed at you.)

Your religion is Christianity, which is not heresy. Your branch, however, is heresy because its doctrines are anti-biblical.

*sigh*

See what I mean?

[Constantinopolis]

Because the purpose of the prophets was to prepare the way and point towards the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. After the Messiah came, there was no need for prophets any more. And there is no need for further divine revelation because everything has already been revealed. After all, God Himself became man and spoke to us. What need is there for God to send more spokespeople after that? Everything that He wanted to say, He said while He was on Earth with us.

Miracles, on the other hand, do continue to happen. God continues to do things. But He doesn't send prophets or divine revelation any more because He already said what He wanted to say.

'Kay. Makes sense (although I do disagree.)

I'm pretty sure that everyone here who has ever interacted with Mormons is aware that Mormons are among the nicest people on the planet. So don't take any of this personally.

The argument isn't that you're doing anything wrong on a personal level. The argument is that the LDS Church has dubious historical origins which indicate that Smith was (to be blunt) a false prophet.

Okay.

Still don't consider the historical origins dubious... feel free to debate with me more on that if you like... but I'd rather agree to disagree, it's obvious that no one is going to agree with me here.

Oh, I'm totally okay with agreeing to disagree, but (as you're about to see) when people on this thread agree to disagree, no one has anything left to say and then it gets really quiet.

[Corpus Magnus]

No... I think it's more that I value similarities more than differences.

If you look at all the posts made on this thread, you'd notice that there are a lot of posts talking about heresy and blasphemy and dissecting other people's religions in order to disprove them. As a Mormon, I don't do that. I would rather talk about my love of God with people than argue about whether God has a physical body or not. It seems to me like when other people think of Mormons, they think about the Godhead and all that historical stuff United Muscovite Nations keeps spouting off about. But when I think of you guys, I just think, They love God. That's a good thing. I am fully aware of how different my religion is than yours, in fact I am reminded of it often. Many people on this thread seem very concerned about the particulars of religion and get riled up with minor differences. I find the differences interesting but not particularly concerning and I don't think they should be a barrier between Mormons and other Christians. I see the core of Christianity, which is Christ and love, and I believe in that. So I don't find myself that different from you.

On one level, you're right. Although I should say that the main reason this thread is so full of talk about heresy and blasphemy and dissecting other people's religions is because... well, there's not much else to do on an internet forum specifically designed for debate. Whenever we all agree on something, the discussion just dies. Arguing over theology is basically the thing that keeps the thread going.

But the other thing is, we don't argue just for the fun of it. Theology matters. It doesn't matter as much as loving God and your neighbor, of course, but it does matter. The core of Christianity is indeed Christ and love, but there is more to it than just the core.

For example, we Orthodox believe that sins are forgiven through the sacraments of Confession and Communion, administered by a priest of the Orthodox Church, who has valid apostolic succession. So that means that Christians who do not participate in sacramental Confession and Communion, do not benefit from the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God that is communicated through those sacraments. This makes it more difficult for them to be saved. So we are concerned with persuading people to embrace our theology so that they would join the Church and participate in the sacraments and have a better chance of salvation.

Yes, I do see your point, and I have the same view. I'm not saying the theology isn't important... I'm just saying that the reason why I find myself similar to you is because we share the same core. We are not in the same religion because of those theological differences, so obviously it's important. I agree with you on that.

I would like to point out though that no one is going to convert because of this thread. Really the only reason why I participate on this thread is to learn about other people's religions and tell other people about mine if they're interested. I'm not so interested in the theological debating portion, it doesn't end well. There's no point in arguing about the particulars of religion.

Yes. Holding correct theological beliefs is particularly important to us. The ancient Church spent several hundred years in Late Antiquity deciding precisely what the correct theology was, and we hold their decisions in very high regard, so we want to follow them.

I understand that, there have been a lot of religious disputes in Christian history.

What I don't understand is calling my religion heresy whenever I talk. (Not aimed at you.)

"Heresy" simply means "a false teaching that is significant enough to put one's salvation in danger".[/quote]
I realize that, but it often feels like the word is used in a more offensive way than it is intended to mean.