NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It doesn't matter, that's not what defines Christianity. What defines Christianity is the dogmatic statements laid out in the Nicene Creed, that is: the Trinity, God as creator of the universe, the Incarnation, the resurrection, and the second coming.

Even then they are still nominal Christians if they don't accept the NC.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:They haven't broken with any of their early principles,

Um...polygamy?

Let me ask you a question: If I called myself a Muslim, but believed that Muhammad was a second God, and the Allah was once a man, but now only rules over a single planet, and that Allah has a wife who he conceived Muhammad with, would I be a Muslim in any meaningful sense?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The New California Republic wrote: Even then they are still nominal Christians if they don't accept the NC.


Um...polygamy?

Let me ask you a question: If I called myself a Muslim, but believed that Muhammad was a second God, and the Allah was once a man, but now only rules over a single planet, and that Allah has a wife who he conceived Muhammad with, would I be a Muslim in any meaningful sense?

I'd say that it's a pretty distorted reinterpretation of it that would be nominally Islam depending on the values and other things it teaches.

You gonna pick up on the polygamy thing?

The New California Republic wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Let me ask you a question: If I called myself a Muslim, but believed that Muhammad was a second God, and the Allah was once a man, but now only rules over a single planet, and that Allah has a wife who he conceived Muhammad with, would I be a Muslim in any meaningful sense?

I'd say that it's a pretty distorted reinterpretation of it that would be nominally Islam depending on the values and other things it teaches.

You gonna pick up on the polygamy thing?

Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I'd say that it's a pretty distorted reinterpretation of it that would be nominally Islam depending on the values and other things it teaches.

You gonna pick up on the polygamy thing?

Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

That's not the weirdest Christian doctrine I've ever heard of tbqh.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I'd say that it's a pretty distorted reinterpretation of it that would be nominally Islam depending on the values and other things it teaches.

You gonna pick up on the polygamy thing?

Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

And yet it is still a break with their early principles, regardless of the fact that they were pushed into it through the Utah War, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, Edmunds Act, and Edmunds–Tucker Act; and ultimately enforced by church discipline as a result of the Second Manifesto of 1904.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I'd say that it's a pretty distorted reinterpretation of it that would be nominally Islam depending on the values and other things it teaches.

You gonna pick up on the polygamy thing?

Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

Also the doctrine held by many Mormons that God was originally just a man who followed Mormonism on another planet and was elevated to godhood after death. Which pretty much completely contradicts the entire Biblical canon regardless of which sect you belong to.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

That's not the weirdest Christian doctrine I've ever heard of tbqh.

It doesn’t even scratch the surface of the weirdest Mormon doctrines

Hanafuridake wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Mormons stopped practicing polygamy because of the US government, but they still teach that after death, Mormon men will have multiple wives and that they will populate their planet with the children their wives will bear them.

Also the doctrine held by many Mormons that God was originally just a man who followed Mormonism on another planet and was elevated to godhood after death. Which pretty much completely contradicts the entire Biblical canon regardless of which sect you belong to.

God being a Mormon kinda contradicts itself, much less biblical canon.

Also, I have an issue with the whole "nominal Christian religion" thing. I think that religious labels ought to be descriptive, and part of that viewpoint is that sometimes if you water down the original definition of a descriptive label to fit everyone who identifies as that thing, that the label stops actually being a useful label.

Kowani wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Also the doctrine held by many Mormons that God was originally just a man who followed Mormonism on another planet and was elevated to godhood after death. Which pretty much completely contradicts the entire Biblical canon regardless of which sect you belong to.

God being a Mormon kinda contradicts itself, much less biblical canon.

Yes. There's also the problem that most of the things Smith taught were plagiarized from fantasy novels of his day.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:God being a Mormon kinda contradicts itself, much less biblical canon.

Yes. There's also the problem that most of the things Smith taught were plagiarized from fantasy novels of his day.

Well, that or just outright wrong.

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Yes. There's also the problem that most of the things Smith taught were plagiarized from fantasy novels of his day.

Well, that or just outright wrong.

Yeah, but it's rather amusing how obviously Smith was a charlatan looking back with the historical record. Hell, it would have been obvious even then, large parts of the Book of Mormon are plagiarized verbatim from the King James Bible.

Kowani wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Also the doctrine held by many Mormons that God was originally just a man who followed Mormonism on another planet and was elevated to godhood after death. Which pretty much completely contradicts the entire Biblical canon regardless of which sect you belong to.

God being a Mormon kinda contradicts itself, much less biblical canon.

Unless God worships Himself, God being a Christian is also something of a contradiction, isn't it?
I'm not really sure if God is considered to be one in the first place, but now that I've thought of it, I'd kinda like an answer. Is there something of a consensus on that?

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Kowani wrote:God being a Mormon kinda contradicts itself, much less biblical canon.

Unless God worships Himself, God being a Christian is also something of a contradiction, isn't it?
I'm not really sure if God is considered to be one in the first place, but now that I've thought of it, I'd kinda like an answer. Is there something of a consensus on that?

God isn’t Christian. To be a Christian is to imitate Christ, and to follow the will of the Father.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Well, that or just outright wrong.

Yeah, but it's rather amusing how obviously Smith was a charlatan looking back with the historical record. Hell, it would have been obvious even then, large parts of the Book of Mormon are plagiarized verbatim from the King James Bible.

I believe that was intentional, so as to help give it legitimacy.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Well, that or just outright wrong.

Yeah, but it's rather amusing how obviously Smith was a charlatan looking back with the historical record. Hell, it would have been obvious even then, large parts of the Book of Mormon are plagiarized verbatim from the King James Bible.

The whole thing was made to mirror the King James Bible, with deliberate use of antiquated vocabulary and tenses. Just to produce the King James Bible's "old timey" sound.

How do people not see through this?

Neanderthaland wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Yeah, but it's rather amusing how obviously Smith was a charlatan looking back with the historical record. Hell, it would have been obvious even then, large parts of the Book of Mormon are plagiarized verbatim from the King James Bible.

The whole thing was made to mirror the King James Bible, with deliberate use of antiquated vocabulary and tenses. Just to produce the King James Bible's "old timey" sound.

How do people not see through this?

You'd at least think people would begin to catch on that Smith was a cult leader when he started sleeping with people's wives and setting up quasi-theocracies.

The New California Republic wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Utah thread reminded me, it bothers me to no end that the LDS are an option in the poll.

I mean, they profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, so...

No they don't.

Ghost in the Shell wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I mean, they profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, so...

No they don't.

They do tho.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ghost in the Shell wrote:No they don't.

They do tho.

Even if they profess to follow his teachings, simply professing to follow Christ's teachings is not a meaningful label for Christians. It's so inclusive that it includes entire non-Christian religions. For religious labels to be useful they have to have some kind of descriptive power.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ghost in the Shell wrote:No they don't.

They do tho.

So do Muslims, and so did Manichees; that doesn't make Muslim Christians and didn't make Manichees Christian, any more than accepting the Old Testament as scripture turns Christians into Jews.

I don't have the time or the energy to go into detail on this again, but it's often struck me that Mormons are at a liminal stage of their development where their future could branch off in one of two primary ways. They either get broader recognition within mainstream Christianity that Mormons are Christians despite their somewhat idiosyncratic view of the nature of Jesus of Nazareth and His teachings, or they embrace their unique additional revealed Scripture and rather distinct theology and argue that they're a new religion that builds on earlier religions.

I'm not going to make a prediction on the future, but in a sense they're at a similar stage to early Christianity in the first and second centuries (where it wasn't clear if Christians were a new religion or idiosyncratic Jews) or early Islam in the 7th century (when many Byzantines initially conceptualised Islam as an idiosyncratic form of Arianism) or the early stage of Manichaeism were the boundary between the latter and Christianity was often permeable (see, inter alia, Augustine of Hippo)


Incidentally, sorry to have been away for a while; very busy in RL in Egypt.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:They do tho.

So do Muslims, and so did Manichees; that doesn't make Muslim Christians and didn't make Manichees Christian, any more than accepting the Old Testament as scripture turns Christians into Jews.

I don't have the time or the energy to go into detail on this again, but it's often struck me that Mormons are at a liminal stage of their development where their future could branch off in one of two primary ways. They either get broader recognition within mainstream Christianity that Mormons are Christians despite their somewhat idiosyncratic view of the nature of Jesus of Nazareth and His teachings, or they embrace their unique additional revealed Scripture and rather distinct theology and argue that they're a new religion that builds on earlier religions.

I'm not going to make a prediction on the future, but in a sense they're at a similar stage to early Christianity in the first and second centuries (where it wasn't clear if Christians were a new religion or idiosyncratic Jews) or early Islam in the 7th century (when many Byzantines initially conceptualised Islam as an idiosyncratic form of Arianism) or the early stage of Manichaeism were the boundary between the latter and Christianity was often permeable (see, inter alia, Augustine of Hippo)


Incidentally, sorry to have been away for a while; very busy in RL in Egypt.

How are things going in Egypt, btw?

Lower Nubia wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Unless God worships Himself, God being a Christian is also something of a contradiction, isn't it?
I'm not really sure if God is considered to be one in the first place, but now that I've thought of it, I'd kinda like an answer. Is there something of a consensus on that?

God isn’t Christian. To be a Christian is to imitate Christ, and to follow the will of the Father.

Nobody imitates Christ better than Christ himself.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
So do Muslims, and so did Manichees; that doesn't make Muslim Christians and didn't make Manichees Christian, any more than accepting the Old Testament as scripture turns Christians into Jews.

I don't have the time or the energy to go into detail on this again, but it's often struck me that Mormons are at a liminal stage of their development where their future could branch off in one of two primary ways. They either get broader recognition within mainstream Christianity that Mormons are Christians despite their somewhat idiosyncratic view of the nature of Jesus of Nazareth and His teachings, or they embrace their unique additional revealed Scripture and rather distinct theology and argue that they're a new religion that builds on earlier religions.

I'm not going to make a prediction on the future, but in a sense they're at a similar stage to early Christianity in the first and second centuries (where it wasn't clear if Christians were a new religion or idiosyncratic Jews) or early Islam in the 7th century (when many Byzantines initially conceptualised Islam as an idiosyncratic form of Arianism) or the early stage of Manichaeism were the boundary between the latter and Christianity was often permeable (see, inter alia, Augustine of Hippo)


Incidentally, sorry to have been away for a while; very busy in RL in Egypt.

How are things going in Egypt, btw?

Busy, which is why I haven't been very active recently - who would have thought that planning to install tens of thousands of artefacts into a brand new museum, some of them literally priceless, to a tight schedule would prove to be so time-consuming?


On topic, I found myself in Alexandria recently, and ran into a Greek colleague while there. He invited me along to visit a historical Orthodox church that he'd written some academic papers on. Which is how I found myself in the main Orthodox church in Alexandria during the Forefeast of the Dormition of the Theotokos, alongside some of the last Greeks of Alexandria, while surrounded by an astonishing collection of relics.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ghost in the Shell wrote:No they don't.

The New California Republic wrote:They do tho.

So do Muslims, and so did Manichees; that doesn't make Muslim Christians and didn't make Manichees Christian, any more than accepting the Old Testament as scripture turns Christians into Jews.

I know, it was just a response to GitS' assertion that Mormons don't profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.