Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[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

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.

Yup that's fine, was just pointing it out in case folk weren't aware of it as a kind of guidebook to have along with the core texts. And people like free stuff so...

[Old Tyrannia]

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.

To assume that "Roman doctrine" is synonymous with "Catholicism" is to take the side of the papacy. The leading figures of the English Reformation and early theologians of the post-Reformation Church of England were very clear in defending its catholicity; in the eyes of Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Andrewes, Laud et al., the church was both fully reformed and wholly catholic. As Elizabeth I put it, "we and our people - thanks be to God - follow no novel and strange religion, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers."

[Sundiata]

First station of the cross...

As Christ's trial was moving to its close, there was no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing. The judge knew that Christ's enemies handed him over because they envied him. He then tried an absurd move. He offers the crowd a criminal accused of theft and murder, and Jesus who simply says that he is Christ. The people opt to free Barabus, the criminal accused of theft. However, even worse, the crowd still specifically can't answer what evil Christ has done. Ultimately, the crowd still yells, "crucify him, crucify him!"

Disgusting.

[Punished UMN]

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.

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.

Tbh I think it's rather generous to consider giving Smith the benefit of the doubt on whether he genuinely believed in his translations, given that he acted more or less like a modern cult leader. Certainly many of the people who came after him in LDS leadership were true believers, but it would take a lot to convince me that Smith was anything more than a charlatan.

[New Visayan Islands]

So, what does the CDT have planned for Todos los Santos? Given that tomorrow is the Solemnity of All Saints, which to us here in the Philippines is traditionally held to be a day for us to commemorate our dearly departed--that All Souls' Day on November 2nd is a thing notwithstanding--how do y'all commemorate the loved ones you've lost over the years?

[Mostrov]

To assume that "Roman doctrine" is synonymous with "Catholicism" is to take the side of the papacy. The leading figures of the English Reformation and early theologians of the post-Reformation Church of England were very clear in defending its catholicity; in the eyes of Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Andrewes, Laud et al., the church was both fully reformed and wholly catholic. As Elizabeth I put it, "we and our people - thanks be to God - follow no novel and strange religion, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers."

The ambiguity is because I am using Catholic as interchangeable with Roman. Catholic is merely a term. We are, naturally, catholic, whenever we recited the Nicene Creed we prove so, yet we still closer in origin to the Reformation—or ought be—than Rome: even via media was between Lutheranism and the Calvinism. The articles are very clear on matters of theology; but then neither transubstantiation or the mariology of Rome were known to the council of Nicaea.

I've grown so very disenchanted with the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholicism. It is a rotting from within (& a gateway to Rome) and in so doing loses the national character of the English church by adopting Roman ritual—the Book of Common Prayer and Authorized version are a scriptural heritage in opposition.

[The Archregimancy]

Tbh I think it's rather generous to consider giving Smith the benefit of the doubt on whether he genuinely believed in his translations, given that he acted more or less like a modern cult leader. Certainly many of the people who came after him in LDS leadership were true believers, but it would take a lot to convince me that Smith was anything more than a charlatan.

I gave him just a small smidgen of the possibility of the benefit of the doubt on his translations from hieroglyphs on the basis of my knowledge of how their translation was approached in the early 19th century.

While my perspective on Smith as an individual is largely in line with yours, this doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have believed in his translations of papyrus. The history of the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs is littered with people who really were convinced that they had finally succeeded in cracking it. This led to some frankly loopy interpretations of Ancient Egyptian texts. So in this regard, Smith wasn't unique.

However, given the silliness of the claims over the Book of Abraham and the bizarre supposed content, I do think it more likely that he simply made it up.

[Old Tyrannia]

To assume that "Roman doctrine" is synonymous with "Catholicism" is to take the side of the papacy. The leading figures of the English Reformation and early theologians of the post-Reformation Church of England were very clear in defending its catholicity; in the eyes of Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Andrewes, Laud et al., the church was both fully reformed and wholly catholic. As Elizabeth I put it, "we and our people - thanks be to God - follow no novel and strange religion, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers."

The ambiguity is because I am using Catholic as interchangeable with Roman. Catholic is merely a term. We are, naturally, catholic, whenever we recited the Nicene Creed we prove so, yet we still closer in origin to the Reformation—or ought be—than Rome: even via media was between Lutheranism and the Calvinism. The articles are very clear on matters of theology; but then neither transubstantiation or the mariology of Rome were known to the council of Nicaea.

I've grown so very disenchanted with the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholicism. It is a rotting from within (& a gateway to Rome) and in so doing loses the national character of the English church by adopting Roman ritual—the Book of Common Prayer and Authorized version are a scriptural heritage in opposition.

You're not telling me anything that I did not already know. You sound a lot like me six months ago. I don't have any time for Anglo-Catholics who pretend that they're not Protestant or borrow excessively from post-Tridentine Roman Catholic liturgy or theology, but I think getting overly worked up about the fact that modern Anglicanism is not as theologically or liturgically uniform as it was in the 18th century is unhealthy and unproductive. I think there is room within the "broad church" for Prayer Book Catholics as there is for old fashioned Reformed Anglicans.

There was good and bad in the Tractarian movement. The good as I see it includes the revival of Gothic church architecture and restoration of vestments, the emphasis on outreach to the working class, and the emphasis on the church fathers and the catholicity of the post-Reformation church. The bad includes the opposition to establishment, the eventual abandonment by many Anglo-Catholics of the BCP in favour of continental Roman Catholic liturgy, a "branch theory that implied there was no meaningful reason to chose to be Anglican rather than Roman Catholic, and the distortion of the church's history to downplay its Protestant and Reformed heritage. I think that both Anglo-Catholics and their critics ought to be reminded that in the view of the Tractarians themselves, the Church of England of the late 16th through to the 18th century was fully catholic in the most important sense, and the 1662 Prayer Book was fully compatible with catholic worship.

I am most at home with a "high and dry" style of worship utilising the BCP, which by the sounds of it would suit you as well. But I must confess that given the choice between attending a nosebleed-high Anglo-Catholic Mass or a HTB-style Evangelical service I'd probably side with the Puseyites.

[Lost Memories]

I've grown so very disenchanted with the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholicism. [...] in so doing loses the national character of the English church by adopting Roman ritual—the Book of Common Prayer and Authorized version are a scriptural heritage in opposition.

Is the aim of the holy church established by Christ to be nationalistic?
How many separated churches would you need for everyone to have their nationalistic church? How can it be claimed "oneness" of the church, with nationalistic churches?

[Old Tyrannia]

I've grown so very disenchanted with the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholicism. [...] in so doing loses the national character of the English church by adopting Roman ritual—the Book of Common Prayer and Authorized version are a scriptural heritage in opposition.

Is the aim of the holy church established by Christ to be nationalistic?
How many separated churches would you need for everyone to have their nationalistic church? How can it be claimed "oneness" of the church, with nationalistic churches?

The Church of England is fully capable as serving as both the national church of the English and as the local branch of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church without suffering in its ability to fulfil either role. In fact I would say that the Anglican Communion has generally managed to avoid the pitfall of becoming an ethnic religon better than the Eastern Orthodox churches have; we don't typically have multiple Anglican provinces serving different ethnic communities in the same jurisduction. If I were to move to the United States for some reason, I'd simply attend an Episcopalian church; and when African or Indian Anglicans move to the UK, they attend Church of England services like their fellow Anglicans. Where multiple "Anglican" churches exist within the same region they are typically the result of schisms over doctrine rather than ethnic divisions. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is more unified than either the Anglican or Eastern Orthodox communions, but the consequence of that from a non-Roman Catholic perspective is the imposition of a uniform set of errors from above. If the Roman See goes astray, the whole Roman Catholic Church goes astray, a problem that communions formed of autonomous national and regional churches does not suffer from.

[Cocuryeo]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

[Sundiata]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

The Roman Catholic Church. Look into the Catechism and RCIA.

[Cocuryeo]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

The Roman Catholic Church. Look into the Catechism and RCIA.

Okay, will do. To whom can I ask questions if I'm puzzled about something, though?

[Old Tyrannia]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

Obviously we're all going to recommend our own denominations. May I ask where in the world you live?

[Punished UMN]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

What are some things you'd be unwilling to accept from a denomination? What exactly is it you're looking for?

[Cocuryeo]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

What are some things you'd be unwilling to accept from a denomination? What exactly is it you're looking for?

Just pros and cons of each denomination.

[Punished UMN]

What are some things you'd be unwilling to accept from a denomination? What exactly is it you're looking for?

Just pros and cons of each denomination.

Well, what are some cons that are dealbreakers?

[-Ocelot-]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

I'm an Atheist, my suggestion would be to look on how each sect of Christianity approaches salvation and day-to-day living. Protestants, for example, believe that faith alone is enough (Sola fide) and that dying leads you directly to heaven. Catholics and Orthodox believe that faith and good deeds are necessary to go to heaven. Catholics also believe in the purgatory, a temporary dimension where souls to go be purged from imperfections before going to heaven.

Another major difference is that Protestants believe that anyone can interpret the bible and that alone is enough (Sola scriptura). Catholics and Orthodox believe that only the church's interpretation of the bible is the right one and that being a Christian is a combination of both reading the bible and church practices and rituals. Protestants don't have a leading figure, while Catholics and Orthodox have (Pope & Ecumenical Patriarch respectively).

The Orthodox church worships icons and some even go as far as to worship the bones of certain holy people.

In general I'd say that the major difference between the sects is between the Protestants and the non-Protestants. Maybe you should start from whether you want to be a Protestant first.

[Cocuryeo]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

I'm an Atheist, my suggestion would be to look on how each sect of Christianity approaches salvation and day-to-day living. Protestants, for example, believe that faith alone is enough (Sola fide) and that dying leads you directly to heaven. Catholics and Orthodox believe that faith and good deeds are necessary to go to heaven. Catholics also believe in the purgatory, a temporary dimension where souls to go be purged from imperfections before going to heaven.

Another major difference is that Protestants believe that anyone can interpret the bible and that alone is enough (Sola scriptura). Catholics and Orthodox believe that only the church's interpretation of the bible is the right one and that being a Christian is a combination of both reading the bible and church practices and rituals. Protestants don't have a leading figure, while Catholics and Orthodox have (Pope & Ecumenical Patriarch respectively).

The Orthodox church worships icons and some even go as far as to worship the bones of certain holy people.

In general I'd say that the major difference between the sects is between the Protestants and the non-Protestants. Maybe you should start from whether you want to be a Protestant first.

Ah, that is very fascinating. I mean, I've heard of the word, "Protestant", but I've never delved into it as closely as what you've mentioned. Do the protestants use the bible or do all denominations use it?

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

[Cocuryeo]

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Ah, okay. For a layman like myself, it would be nice to read some straightforward notes about each denomination, but it doesn't seem easy to get those. May I at least hear about your denomination? What is your denomination?

[The Archregimancy]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

In terms of learning more about the Orthodox Church, you may find this English-language resource useful (acknowledging that you may want to skip the bits specific to North America):

https://www.oca.org/questions

It's certainly going to be a better guide than internet forum posts from random strangers, not least because - as has already been pointed out - we're all going to favour our own traditions.

The Orthodox church worships icons and some even go as far as to worship the bones of certain holy people.

We don't worship icons and relics, we venerate them. It's not the same thing; not to us, anyway. And besides, Catholics venerate icons and relics as well; even some Anglicans do. It's hardly unique to Orthodoxy, it just has more prominence in the Orthodox tradition.

Or, as Old Tyrannia noted:

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Quite.

[Cocuryeo]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

In terms of learning more about the Orthodox Church, you may find this English-language resource useful (acknowledging that you may want to skip the bits specific to North America):

https://www.oca.org/questions

It's certainly going to be a better guide than internet forum posts from random strangers, not least because - as has already been pointed out - we're all going to favour our own traditions.

The Orthodox church worships icons and some even go as far as to worship the bones of certain holy people.

We don't worship icons and relics, we venerate them. It's not the same thing; not to us, anyway. And besides, Catholics venerate icons and relics as well; even some Anglicans do. It's hardly unique to Orthodoxy, it just has more prominence in the Orthodox tradition.

Or, as Old Tyrannia noted:

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Quite.

Thank you for the advice. I'll keep that in mind.

[-Ocelot-]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

In terms of learning more about the Orthodox Church, you may find this English-language resource useful (acknowledging that you may want to skip the bits specific to North America):

https://www.oca.org/questions

It's certainly going to be a better guide than internet forum posts from random strangers, not least because - as has already been pointed out - we're all going to favour our own traditions.

The Orthodox church worships icons and some even go as far as to worship the bones of certain holy people.

We don't worship icons and relics, we venerate them. It's not the same thing; not to us, anyway. And besides, Catholics venerate icons and relics as well; even some Anglicans do. It's hardly unique to Orthodoxy, it just has more prominence in the Orthodox tradition.

Or, as Old Tyrannia noted:

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Quite.

I'm Greek. Quite a few Orthodox Greeks worship the icons themselves whether they want to admit it or not. For someone who wants to become an Orthodox, it's important to know how some Orthodox Christians treat icons and other "holy" items.

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Which part is inaccurate?

[Cocuryeo]

I'm Greek. Quite a few Orthodox Greeks worship the icons themselves whether they want to admit it or not. For someone who wants to become an Orthodox, it's important to know how some Orthodox Christians treat icons and other "holy" items.

Like the crucifix, crown of thorns?