Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Lower Nubia]

Exactly... it’s decentralised to accommodate the vast variety of methods. A variety of methods that exist because people barely agree on anything.

sure, but that decentralized structure also allows more personal freedom of worship, instead of people pointing at each other and saying "No that's NOT what they meant!"

You only need personal freedom when you need to accommodate different and therefore even contradictory means of worship. If everyone agreed, there would be one method. The fact there are many is testament to Paganisms inherent disunity and disagreements.in Christianity, there is no personal freedom against the Eucharist, because everyone agrees into its central necessity to worship.

[New Steuben]

sure, but that decentralized structure also allows more personal freedom of worship, instead of people pointing at each other and saying "No that's NOT what they meant!"

You only need personal freedom when you need to accommodate different and therefore even contradictory means of worship. If everyone agreed, there would be one method. The fact there are many is testament to Paganisms inherent disunity and disagreements.in Christianity, there is no personal freedom against the Eucharist, because everyone agrees into its central necessity to worship.

That is a statement from the perspective of a Christian though, Pagans do not see it as some negative or that is somehow is "less holy"

Christianity is more unified, for sure, but it's no so far out. Not to mention, Pagans don't call others "not pagans" if they have minor disagreements, their is no "disownment".

[Lower Nubia]

You only need personal freedom when you need to accommodate different and therefore even contradictory means of worship. If everyone agreed, there would be one method. The fact there are many is testament to Paganisms inherent disunity and disagreements.in Christianity, there is no personal freedom against the Eucharist, because everyone agrees into its central necessity to worship.

That is a statement from the perspective of a Christian though, Pagans do not see it as some negative or that is somehow is "less holy"

No. It’s a statement on obviousness. If everyone was a robot that did the same thing, you wouldn’t need personal freedom laws to accommodate action, because everyone is the same. You have personal freedom laws to allow for choice, and choice represents diversion from a singular option.

[The Archregimancy]

What is that quote from?

D&C 101.78-80

For those not wholly au fait with the extra holy texts of the Latter Day Saint movement, I believe that Auze is referring to the Doctrine and Covenants.

He doesn't say which version, mind, but sheer weight of demographics would suggest that it's likely the version used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, rather than one of the dozens of smaller Restorationist denominations.

Though if he is from one of the smaller denominations, colour me intrigued.

[Auze]

D&C 101.78-80

For those not wholly au fait with the extra holy texts of the Latter Day Saint movement, I believe that Auze is referring to the Doctrine and Covenants.

He doesn't say which version, mind, but sheer weight of demographics would suggest that it's likely the version used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, rather than one of the dozens of smaller Restorationist denominations.

Though if he is from one of the smaller denominations, colour me intrigued.

Thanks for clarifying, and you are indeed correct about which denomination I am a part of.

[Old Tyrannia]

Harking back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether it is acceptable for Christians to rebel against lawful governments- I managed to find this post from the Anglican blog laudable Practice, which quotes at length a sermon delivered by Christopher Wordsworth, the then-future Bishop of Lincoln, at the Accession Day service on 20^th June 1841. The excerpt below effectively summarises my thoughts on the matter.

While I don't mean to disrespect Wordsworth, and by extension you yourself, Tyrannia, that is easy to say when the present is stable and the monarch is a decent sort.

I would wonder, however, how Wordsworth as an Anglican Bishop, thought of Charles II's dethroning. Whether or not the "Popish Plot" was entirely true (I haven't done a ton of reading in that era), Charles II was booted from the throne out of the fear that he would restore the Catholic Church in England. Do you think Wordsworth would have still held that line, or would he have made more of an exception?

Or perhaps as a more modern example, I wonder what he would have thought about Edward VIII and his pretty obviously pressured abdication. I think it's fairly clear that Edward VIII would have been a disaster for the monarchy and for Britain as a whole if he were monarch in WWII, so resisting him and pressuring him to abdicate and leave Britain I would argue was for the best.

I'm not really saying this as a "gotcha" or anything. Because as a Monarchist part of me does strongly believe that fighting the anointed monarch is wrong...But on the other hand there have been understandable situations where it was for the best that the monarch be removed. It's something I grapple with and I'm still trying to make sense of it.

Well, first of all, I think that you are confusing Charles II with his brother James VII and II. It was the latter who was deposed in the Glorious Revolution in 1688. As a spiritual descendant of the Nonjurors, clergymen who were prosecuted for refusing to renounce their oaths of allegiance to James after his flight, I'm sure that Wordsworth would have been familiar with the Glorious Revolution- as would any well-schooled Englishman of his generation- and consequently would have taken it into account when forming his views on non-resistance to monarchs. I myself have repeatedly stated that, although I am not a fan of James or his effort to restore papal authority in Britain, I would not have supported any insurrection against him as he was the lawful sovereign. Nonetheless, what occurred did occur, and providence ultimately brought to the throne the House of Hanover to whom I am now loyal.

Since this is the Christian Discussion Thread, I'd be amiss in not pointing out that the Catholic Church did not need to be "restored" in England, having never been disestablished; the Church of England being fully part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church regardless of whether or not she was in communion of the See of Rome (although we of course will not agree on this).

As to the case of Edward VIII, I think it is worth emphasising that he abdicated, rather than being deposed. True, he was pressured to abdicate by his family, ministers and the church; but I think it is within the right of an advisor to recommend that their sovereign abdicate if that is truly the best course of action for the nation. Crucially, had Edward refused to abdicate even in response to his ministers' threats to resign, I don't believe that there would be any legal step that could be taken to force him to do so. In any case, pressuring the monarch to abdicate voluntarily is not tantamount in my opinion to seeking to forcefully depose the monarch. I'd add to this point that even in 1688, Parliament relied upon the legal fiction that James had abdicated the throne by fleeing the country in order to justify its invitation to William and Mary to assume the throne. This indicates that even those who plotted to depose James were not confident in the belief that Parliament, or any body, had the authority to depose a reigning monarch. Given that the deposition of James' father Charles I following the Wars of the Three Kingdoms was retroactively declared to have been illegal following the Restoration, this means that there is technically no clear legal precedent for the deposition of a reigning English or British monarch by their people since the Middle Ages (and I'd also argue that Henry IV's rebellion against Richard II was illegitimate).

I don't say that to be rude, btw, I just don't believe in mincing words.

We worship the Father in the name of the Son, as Jesus commanded. We follow the doctrine and authority given by Christ to his Apostles. How are we not Christian?

Mormonism holds a number of beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity, including the idea that the Father and Son are wholly different people and that Mormon believers will themselves ultimately become gods following their deaths. In my opinion, and those of virtually all Christians through history, if one cannot affirm the Apostles' Creed- the oldest and most basic declaration of Christian belief- without crossing one's fingers, one cannot claim to be a Christian.

Quite a bit of these discussions are part and parcel on the teachings of Christ (and the Bible more generally), and disagreements on what those teachings precisely are.

it seems just...inflammatory when a christian would call another christian, not a christian, based on some petty disagreement in theology.

These aren't "petty" disagreements, they are significant and fundamental parts of the Christian faith. If Mormons can be considered Christians, then there's little reason not to consider Muslims to be Christians as well. Besides, Christianity is a doctrinal religion; a Christian is defined by what they believe. If a person doesn't believe in the doctrines of Christianity, then they are not a Christian, it's as simple as that.

[Turelisa-]

But why are so many christians becoming atheists and why is christianity on the decline in places like europe. I mean the muslims seem far more devout and capable.

Im not shitting on christianity i like christianity in more than a few ways

It's not. Protestantism is in decline; Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the other older churches are growing.

Which is objectively a good thing.

If this were an objective thing, which is debatable, given the lack of evidence, which you have failed to provide, I would attribute it to the popular appeal of the theology that Catholicism is based on, which is more liberal than Protestantism in general, and especially Reformed theology.

[Nihon no Tengoku]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Oh stop it with this holier than art thou attitude. This is not a petty argument.

Mormons have more or less fundamentally reimagined the very nature of Christ, so it's not really a petty argument at all. It'd be like if I decided to be a Norse pagan only I unilaterally decided that the Norse Gods were actually all transgender women, and Ragnarök will actually be a pretty awesome swimsuit party.

Of course, I'm exaggerating for emphasis, but no, it's not petty at all. I will admit, yes, there are some arguments between believers that are petty. This is not one. As other believers have touched upon, Mormonism literally teaches things that directly contradict the scripture in the Bible, which it justifies with abundant 'errata' and its own additional holy text.

[The Archregimancy]

As other believers have touched upon, Mormonism literally teaches things that directly contradict the scripture in the Bible, which it justifies with abundant 'errata' and its own additional holy text.

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Mormon is widely known outside Mormonism, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price less so. However, all four form part of the LDS scriptural canon.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

[The New California Republic]

As other believers have touched upon, Mormonism literally teaches things that directly contradict the scripture in the Bible, which it justifies with abundant 'errata' and its own additional holy text.

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Mormon is widely known outside Mormonism, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price less so. However, all four form part of the LDS scriptural canon.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Just to highlight something else because you haven't included it: The Articles of Faith by James Talmage is also a useful text for understanding Mormonism. There are copies available for free download if anyone wants to look it up: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238

[Auze]

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Yeah, even a large amount of believing Mormons who know about this subject consider it somewhat strange (and yes, the church is aware that at least one of the Facsimiles is from a Funerary Text, they even published that information), which is probably why it about forty years to be canonized.

[Suriyanakhon]

if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Oh, so that's where their weird doctrine that God was once a man and that Mormons can become a God comes from.

[Lost Memories]

I personally feel like just 'Christian' would probably do. The apostles were against divisions in the church (rip lol) so my guess is that it'd probably be better to avoid as distinguishing yourself anymore than is necessary.

Fair enough, I suppose.

I've come to the belief that, spiritually speaking, there is only one church that all practicing Christians belong to by default and no Earthly division can truly sunder it since it goes beyond materialism.
But maybe that's just some weird 'Christian unity' fantasy I came up with, I dunno. I feel God shakes His head every time a new denomination springs up, asking Himself "What are you kids doing?"

That idea of "christian unity" you have, it's not very hard to test how true it is.

If you were to meet other people claiming to be christian, of various different groups, meet and talk about your faith and what christianity means, would you say to share their faith?
Would you say you share your faith with a Southern Baptist?
Would you say you share your faith with a Mormon?
Would you say you share your faith with a Jehovah's Witnesses?
Would you say you share your faith with a Kitawala?


We agree though that Jesus established only one church on earth, for the communion of all humanity with God, and not 10'000 churches divided between them.

[Turelisa-]

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Mormon is widely known outside Mormonism, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price less so. However, all four form part of the LDS scriptural canon.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Just to highlight something else because you haven't included it: The Articles of Faith by James Talmage is also a useful text for understanding Mormonism. There are copies available for free download if anyone wants to look it up: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238

The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest religious hoaxes since The Holy Shroud of Turin.

[Lost Memories]

Trollzyn doesn't consider himself Protestant...For some reason.

Because my nondenominational stance was born specifically out of a rejection of both Protestantism and Catholicism. I can't be a Protestant and reject Protestantism at the same time, and since my mother failed to raise me as a proper Catholic (mostly because she's barely Catholic herself), then what am I? I'm clearly not Protestant, and I'm clearly not Catholic, yet I don't belong to any specific church?

So, besides just "Christian", what do I call myself to designate the fact I follow Christ yet belong to no church?

As answer i would instead go with:
Cultural Christian with Lapsed adherence to a church.

It both means, to be a not practicing christian, since you need to be part of a church to be an active christian. (it's not just about going to church, even if that's the main source of learning)
And it's also like those agnostics or undecided, who are interested in christianity, and who need to join one church to be part of a community to do God's will.
Being christian and alone(in faith) is an oxymoron.

Being born into a church just helps receiving a lot of informations early, compared to having to learn as an adult. Being part of a church isn't validated by ancestry. But by commitment to the community.

[The New California Republic]

Just to highlight something else because you haven't included it: The Articles of Faith by James Talmage is also a useful text for understanding Mormonism. There are copies available for free download if anyone wants to look it up: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238

The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest religious hoaxes since The Holy Shroud of Turin.

That doesn't particularly bother me, as my interest in it is purely academic curiosity; its veracity is an aside.

[Turelisa-]

The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest religious hoaxes since The Holy Shroud of Turin.

That doesn't particularly bother me, as my interest in it is purely academic curiosity; its veracity is an aside.

Oh? You're a scholar of myth, are you?

[The New California Republic]

That doesn't particularly bother me, as my interest in it is purely academic curiosity; its veracity is an aside.

Oh? You're a scholar of myth, are you?

Nope.

[Suriyanakhon]

The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest religious hoaxes since The Holy Shroud of Turin.

That doesn't particularly bother me, as my interest in it is purely academic curiosity; its veracity is an aside.

Same, although I find myself baffled as to how anyone can believe it to be true.

[The Marlborough]

We worship the Father in the name of the Son, as Jesus commanded. We follow the doctrine and authority given by Christ to his Apostles. How are we not Christian?

Rejection of the trinity, addition of a false prophet, henotheism, etc.

Tbh this is the only part that moves Mormonism from heresy to not being Christian. Though I'll say that most Mormons I've met live quite close to Christ's teachings and values.

I suppose I consider Mormons to be Christianity's Samaritans.

[Luminesa]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

That's a fair bit of an oversimplification. Sure, Christ and His teachings, but the problem is that many of us disagree on what those are. I would say the Bible and Tradition, and whatever the Magisterium hands down through the Deposit of Faith. Merrill might say his teachings come down from God through Joseph Smith. That's the problem we have. You're not wrong, the problem is there's over 44,000 denominations of Christianity in the world.

[New Steuben]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Oh stop it with this holier than art thou attitude. This is not a petty argument.

Mormons have more or less fundamentally reimagined the very nature of Christ, so it's not really a petty argument at all. It'd be like if I decided to be a Norse pagan only I unilaterally decided that the Norse Gods were actually all transgender women, and Ragnarök will actually be a pretty awesome swimsuit party.

Of course, I'm exaggerating for emphasis, but no, it's not petty at all. I will admit, yes, there are some arguments between believers that are petty. This is not one. As other believers have touched upon, Mormonism literally teaches things that directly contradict the scripture in the Bible, which it justifies with abundant 'errata' and its own additional holy text.

Im not trying to be holier than anyone, sorry

[Mostrov]

While I don't mean to disrespect Wordsworth, and by extension you yourself, Tyrannia, that is easy to say when the present is stable and the monarch is a decent sort.

I would wonder, however, how Wordsworth as an Anglican Bishop, thought of Charles II's dethroning. Whether or not the "Popish Plot" was entirely true (I haven't done a ton of reading in that era), Charles II was booted from the throne out of the fear that he would restore the Catholic Church in England. Do you think Wordsworth would have still held that line, or would he have made more of an exception?

Or perhaps as a more modern example, I wonder what he would have thought about Edward VIII and his pretty obviously pressured abdication. I think it's fairly clear that Edward VIII would have been a disaster for the monarchy and for Britain as a whole if he were monarch in WWII, so resisting him and pressuring him to abdicate and leave Britain I would argue was for the best.

I'm not really saying this as a "gotcha" or anything. Because as a Monarchist part of me does strongly believe that fighting the anointed monarch is wrong...But on the other hand there have been understandable situations where it was for the best that the monarch be removed. It's something I grapple with and I'm still trying to make sense of it.

It is to be remembered that the English Church was national and protestant in character; the role of the monarch was seen as being the personification of this English spirit. There were many monarchs which would not have been ideal as a pontiff (as could be said of many Popes!), such as the Hanoverians, but it never effected the position of Supreme Governor: the clergy has been responsible for itself. It is worth clarifying that High Church did not always mean Anglo-Catholic, but simply an association with the government party and position against non-conformists.

The overthrow of James II was something broadly supported by the clergy because he was not a protestant monarch; only 2% of clergy and 9 bishops were non-juring. A restoration of Catholicism was impossible. In any case England, and subsequently Britain, is a crowned republic—it doesn't conform to the standards of purity demanded of Catholic monarchs, and in any case succession is under the purview of Parliament anyway.

I am skeptical as to the sincere devotion to Charles I past the end of the 17th century: the Act of Supremacy was passed by the ostensibly Jacobite associated Tory faction and Jacobitism was never a popular cause in England (we are after all discussing the Church of England, rather than Scotland).

Since this is the Christian Discussion Thread, I'd be amiss in not pointing out that the Catholic Church did not need to be "restored" in England, having never been disestablished; the Church of England being fully part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church regardless of whether or not she was in communion of the See of Rome (although we of course will not agree on this).

In so far as you define it as Protestant more than Catholic. The Thirty-nine articles are very clear that there is some break with Roman doctrine.

[The Archregimancy]

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Mormon is widely known outside Mormonism, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price less so. However, all four form part of the LDS scriptural canon.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Just to highlight something else because you haven't included it: The Articles of Faith by James Talmage is also a useful text for understanding Mormonism. There are copies available for free download if anyone wants to look it up: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238

I didn't include it because my post was specifically focused on LDS scripture, not broader LDS theology.

The four books I outlined above are co-equal parts of the LDS scriptural canon. Talmage's Articles of Faith, while not without value in understanding the development of LDS theology towards the end of the 19th century, isn't.

[The Archregimancy]

That doesn't particularly bother me, as my interest in it is purely academic curiosity; its veracity is an aside.

Same, although I find myself baffled as to how anyone can believe it to be true.

This is why the only branch of the LDS movement I have much time for is the Community of Christ. While dwarfed by the much larger Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at 250,000 members, it's the second-largest denomination in the broader LDS movement.

Crucially, they don't hold that believing in the historical veracity of the Book of Mormon is required of members (though they do still consider it scripture), and reject the downright wacky Pearl of Great Price. Their beliefs also seem to be closer to classical Christian Trinitarianism, though I'm not qualified to offer a detailed analysis of that.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Yeah, even a large amount of believing Mormons who know about this subject consider it somewhat strange (and yes, the church is aware that at least one of the Facsimiles is from a Funerary Text, they even published that information), which is probably why it about forty years to be canonized.

That's rather underplaying it. The Book of Abraham is demonstrable proof that Joseph Smith didn't know the first thing about Egyptology, and simply made things up; though, like many fantasists who thought they'd cracked hieroglyphs, he might have genuinely believed in his 'translations'. Clearly Joseph Smith had no idea when he was muttering about 'Reformed Egyptian' when first composing the Book of Mormon that Champollion was simultaneously deciphering hieroglyphs, and the news still doesn't seem to have filtered through to him a decade later when he pretended to translate the papyri that form the basis of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Or perhaps he didn't realise that Champollion had finally succeeded; though I suspect the former. Either way, the fact that the 'translation' of The Book of Abraham involved Smith coming up with point-blank false 'grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients' left him a hostage to archaeology.

That's the problem when you decide to base so much of your religion on a mysterious ancient civilisation whose writing no one has deciphered; someone might decipher it.