Are Mormons Christians?

[Dream]

The gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of salvation are one and the same because God's plan of salvation is the same for the Jew as it is for the Gentiles.

"for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones." Proverbs 2:8. Faith requires believing this, but people always try to build devices to replace God. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) They want mechanisms in place, such as this 'Plan of salvation' . It is a complex theory at best, forged through contentions, divisions and hatred between families. It denies God's own work in the world by insisting God is handicapped. That is always at its center everywhere they preach it. "God could not do such & such so he...."

 

[radarmark]

Hey, Dream, thanks! While at our core Thomas and I stand for very distinct traditions, this is the beauty of this forum! Welcome aboard the "continuing revelation" train. One particularly beautiful (if wordy and Germanic) work in this is "Star of Redemption" by Rosenzweig.

To wit, there are three "things" (I see these as actual entities): G-d, World, Humanity. There are three "inter-relations" (I see these as "forms" or "universals" that are manifested in actual entities): Creation (between G-d and World), Revelation (between G-d and Humanity), and Redemption (between Humanity and the World). All three are continuous, eternal processes.

 

[IowaGuy]

This needs clarification —
God reveals Himself to those who seek Him with a true heart (cf Matthew 5:8, Hebrews 12:14).

The distinction is those who claim their particular revelation is 'new' and supercedes/alters previous revelation — that's when the traditional Christian denominations say 'no'.

The RCC and the Orthodox Churches, for example, hold that Christ Himself is the fulness of Revelation, in His body, His words, His deeds — and that nothing can be added to that, there is nothing more to be revealed, if that makes sense?

We all (no doubt) have 'experiences' which we might claim as revelatory, but they are disclosures of being-to-being, they're not the handing on of what would necessarily be 'new scripture'.

Why do you value "old scripture" more than "new scripture"? i.e. why does a revelation that's 2,000 years old carry more weight than a revelation that's 200 years old? It seems like a more recent revelation would be more relevant in today's world?

 

[IowaGuy]

Jesus did not spell out everything that would happen. Instead he taught the holy spirit would come and teach.

So, how do you know that the Holy Spirit hasn't come to teach the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, Joseph Smith, etc?

 

[IowaGuy]

Creation (between G-d and World), Revelation (between G-d and Humanity), and Redemption (between Humanity and the World). All three are continuous, eternal processes.

So, if revelation is an ongiong process, and someone (Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, etc) says they have received a revelation, a teaching of the Holy Spirit - how do you know whether or not it's true?

 

[radarmark]

Depends on what you mean by true, and what revelation is. I do not feel revelation is some thunder and lightning even causing one to write a book or create a religion; rather it is a small quite voice within that speaks to everyone.

As I said, truth is fuzzy. We can get closer and closer to the truth and may never arrive. But falsehood is easily identified. It is a probability thing... like statistical thermodynamics. There are billions and billions of ways to be indecidable, many of which lead to falsehood (plus several million other ways to independently arrive at it). But empirical truth ("objective", "absolute", "proved" truth) has only one path (which I do not happen to think we will find, necessarily).

However if someone claiming revelation says "this is the only way, everyone who does not believe precisely as I do shall suffer in Hell and are worthy targets of hatred and violence," it is my opinion that the revelation is FALSE.

So, what you mean by "truth" is important. Usually I use it strictly (as above). But in private conversation I use it "loosely" as something mystical, mythical, magical... as something pointing to the Beyond which I have experienced but cannot empirically prove as "true".

 

[Dream]

So, how do you know that the Holy Spirit hasn't come to teach the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, Joseph Smith, etc?

I do not claim that it hasn't.

Jesus once told his disciples "He who is not against us is for us." It means you could have a difference of opinion with Jesus, yet still be on his side. What I know is that Joseph Smith did not recognize, at all, other movements of the Holy Spirit except in the past tense. I think that Bahai's do recognize other Christian groups as legitimate, present tense.

When it comes to Bahai's, a young Baha'i who loves Jesus may well wonder what he or she ought to do for Jesus. Jesus told Peter "If you love me, feed my sheep." He considered people to be 'Sheep' in need of shepherding, guarding, feeding and loving. It is all about taking care of other people. What about a young Mormon? What should they do? Jesus once said to Peter "Do not call 'Unclean' what I have called 'Clean'."

 

[Thomas]

Why do you value "old scripture" more than "new scripture"? i.e. why does a revelation that's 2,000 years old carry more weight than a revelation that's 200 years old? It seems like a more recent revelation would be more relevant in today's world?

I regard 'Revelation' as revealing the Divine Nature, and therefore is timeless.

A revelation that seems to reflect contemporary mores I would suggest is probably not a revelation at all.

Same with revelations that seem to be nothing more than a rehash of prior revelations.

And the Mormon claim that the People of Israel came to America in 600BC, flourished into four peoples, fought a war that reduced them to one ... and that an emissary of Christ came to one of them and said 'everything you all believe is wrong, here's the real deal' seems highly unlikely to me ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[IowaGuy]

I regard 'Revelation' as revealing the Divine Nature, and therefore is timeless.

A revelation that seems to reflect contemporary mores I would suggest is probably not a revelation at all.

Same with revelations that seem to be nothing more than a rehash of prior revelations.

How does one know if a "Revelation" reveals the Divine Nature? i.e. why believe a "revelation" from John of Patmos and not a "revelation" from Bahá'u'lláh or Zoroaster?

 

[Ecumenist]

Listen, IowaGuy, it isn't on MY MOTHER CHURCH's list of approved and officially RECOGNIZED Revelations and Revelators. So go away, until you can come back a Catholic, believing exactly as I do, worshipping exactly as I do, and rejecting all other TRADITIONS and approaches as 2ndary to MINE ... if vital, or viable, AT ALL.

By the way, I am not Catholic, I know what a crock is every word of the above ... and I know what ignorance, what foolishness, what envy and vanity surround the opinions and cloud the judgment of those who maintain likewise.

I know this foolishness well, and you are about to see more of it. He'll get back with you tomorrow sometime, I would imagine. But of course, Good Luck, nonetheless!

(just watch your back ... for the rending)

 

[radarmark]

You had me going, Ecumenist!

 

[radarmark]

IG and Thomas. I believe I am closer to IG on this. It is a lot like "who is a Christian?" either you take some tribal answer (JWs think no one else in Christian, SBC have their criteria which does not include the RCC, the RCC does not accept Unitarians or Quakers) or you accept a "watered-down" definition (self-identification).

If one accepts a "hard core" Wahhabist interpretation of the Qu'ran, one must consider even other interpretations of the Qu'ran as not Revelation. If one accepts (say the KJV) one set of Christian canon, then one must reject the Peshitta or the Vulgate or the Greek.

Why cannot all of them be revelatory, maybe based on time and place and who the revelation was to (from Church Patriarchs to those who invented JW). Then you can discuss the veracity, verifiability, and validity in rational terms. This need not (IMHO) compromise your beliefs. If G-d gave us minds to understand the D-vine plan, the revelation should be consistent with it. If not, one should reject rationality and just admit to being an ideologue.

This can be generalized to include the Gattas, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Book of Morman, the writing of Baha'u'llah, or Moreshi Ueshiba.... I might be wrong taking this kind of empirical and scientific and rational approach, I admit that. But the entire approach has been verified over the last 300 years in the Religious Society of Friends. Yep, the Congregationalists or the Catholics or the Wahhabis may be correct (I and we do not claim "Absolute Truth"). But it seems (IMHO) the way that humanity can move forward.

 

[radarmark]

PS, that does not mean I believe all are equally true, consistent, or empirically possible.

 

[IowaGuy]

Why cannot all of them be revelatory, maybe based on time and place and who the revelation was to (from Church Patriarchs to those who invented JW). Then you can discuss the veracity, verifiability, and validity in rational terms.

Let's roll with your logic on this one Radar...

How, for example, would you adress the "veracity, verifiability, and validity" of the Revelation of John of Patmos? How would you rationally compare it to, for example, the writing of Baha'u'llah or the Gospel of Thomas?

 

[radarmark]

Let me think about that. Obviously none of the three can be empirically true so the "hard sense" of veracity is not applicable. Which makes all three issues (V3) metaphysical.

In what since are any of the three internally consistent? Well, if one places one within the cultural and historical context I think all are. So they are verifiable in terms of their internals (this is not the same as being empirically verifiable or testable).

In what sense can any of the three be checked vis a vis the Kosmos (validity)? By experience (internal experimentation) and inter-subjective comparisons with the experience of others (you trust, alive or dead). I think in this sense it is a subjective call (it depends of the individual) and I find them valid.

With a few caveats. Revelation is (per Oriental Orthodox interpretations) a "hidden" text about early church history and not prophecy. Thomas I can accept as a fifth gospel (I think it very very valid given early church history as I understand it and very very consistent with what the Jesus Seminar found). Baha'u'llah's esoteric texts (not always as explained by his successors), especially 4/7 valleys and Kitab-i-Aqdas (for me) are a level above the sorts of Meetings with the D-vine I have and equivalent to those others I trust (the two Foxes, for example or Underwood or Jones) have had. So I find all three valid (within certain restraints).

Which leaves veracity. If there is a "truth" beyond empirical truth, I believe they are. HOWEVER, that is just my opinion and cannot be proven by logic or observation (IMHO).

Does that work?
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/

 

[Thomas]

Hi Radarmark —

It is a lot like "who is a Christian?" either you take some tribal answer ... or you accept a "watered-down" definition (self-identification).

The trouble with the first is it tends to an 'absolute absolutism', whilst the latter tends to 'absolute relativism'. The first will always be seen as exclusive by the majority, whereas the second is so broad as to become meaningless ...

Nevertheless, I do not see why theology should not or need not employ the rigours and disciplines of philosophical study and discourse. Especially when many of the 'self-identification' definitions are demonstrably self-serving fictions.

The proper focus is on the question, and it is an aeternal one, and requires looking 'beyond the veils'. It is, after all, 'the one thing necessary'.

If one accepts (say the KJV) one set of Christian canon, then one must reject the Peshitta or the Vulgate or the Greek.

D'you think so? Not my experience, when studying with Biblical scholars for my degree. Indeed, as a Catholic, many of the resources we were directed to were non-Catholic (Dodd, et al), and I did a major essay on Paul founded on the theology of N.T. Wright (Anglican)...

People tend to hold a broad range of views on Catholicism, from assertions founded on ignorance and self-opinion, to the hysterically prejudiced. They can't all be valid commentaries.

Why cannot all of them be revelatory, maybe based on time and place and who the revelation was to (from Church Patriarchs to those who invented JW).

Because often the material and empirical evidence suggests otherwise?

Take 'The Prophet' by Kahlil Gibran. Is there anything prophetic or revelatory in it? Not really. Sentimental and inspirational, perhaps, but prophetic? I don't think so.

As I have recalled here before. I remember siting on the sofa watching a science programme on TV. The presenter made the point that 'the heavy atoms' (carbon, et al), the stuff of which we're made, can only be manufactured under certain conditions, and those conditions are only found in the hearts of the stars ... 'we are,' he said quite simply, 'the very stuff that stars are made of' ... it was a Damascus moment for me. I can't explain the depth of it, nor the reverberation that endures, like the echo of my own personal 'Big Bang'.

The question of Revelation is a fascinating one, that my course tutor really hoped I would pursue. Revelation in the Catholic Tradition is still very much an open book. René Latourelle is regarded as a sound start, but of course the principle document is Dei Verbum, one of the four constitutional documents of Vatican II — and that is wide open and begging for interpretation ...

God bless, and season's greetings,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Good points, Thomas. As you know I too feel we can study and discuss theology in a philosophically rigorous manner. The comment about the KJV was meant to say if one makes any one version or translation "Right" (the sole source of knowledge) one locks in an us versus them mentality. You are correct, going too far the other direction leads to a modernist relativism leading to all kinds of other problems.

The problem is, as you have indicated, maintaining a balance.

 

[Thomas]

The comment about the KJV was meant to say if one makes any one version or translation "Right" (the sole source of knowledge) one locks in an us versus them mentality.

Indeed. The contemporary problem is exacerbated by the fact that so many people are ready to air so many opinions about things they know actually very little about.

The prime mover behind the KJV for example, was not to get an 'absolutely accurate' translation (such is not possible anyway), but to get a translation that read 'luminously' (my word) ... a translation that did justice to the text.

I use the Douay-Rheims version, the RSV, but if you asked me to put a bible together, it would be a cut-n-paste job from a number of sources according to what tickles my linguistic fancy. Far too much emphasis is put on 'translation' as if moving from Koine Greek to a vernacular was a technical exercise like changing from imperial to metric.

A case in point is the English translation of the latin liturgy. The job was the product of a committee, and in places creaks with blandness — it really is language unbecoming to the Mysteries. (But then who today sees the Liturgy as a Mystery anyway?)

If it were me, I'd get a poet and a lyricist on board with the translators ...

You are correct, going too far the other direction leads to a modernist relativism leading to all kinds of other problems.

The problem is, as you have indicated, maintaining a balance.

Indeed, and I'm not saying I have a solution, but I am aware that many assume that their view is 'balanced', when indeed it is anything but ... relativism again.

By-the-by — I am somewhat surprised you set so much store by the Jesus Seminar, I would have thought your scientific background and approach would have seen through their methodology?

And lastly New Scientist — every issue comes up with something to challenge my faith/belief/views, I really look forward to it. It would certainly upset a few people here, I'm sure. That latest is the view that the chance of finding 'intelligent life' out there in the universe is extremely slim, even if allowing for an infinite number of systems — not that intelligent life is not possible at all, but that the odds of it emerging contemporary with our own, that is looking more and more unlikely ...

Anyway ... God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Revelation is (per Oriental Orthodox interpretations) a "hidden" text about early church history and not prophecy.

A very good point. Too many people assume Revelation to mean just that.

Thomas I can accept as a fifth gospel ...

Technically 'gospel' is from 'evangelium', meaning 'good news'. I'm not sure Thomas comprises that, any more than Plato does, for your average Christian in the street — it's a highly sophisticated/stylised philosophical discourse put into the mouth of Christ, but I'm really not sure that it accurate reflects the preaching of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet ... let alone the message of the Incarnate Son?

Have you got any info on the background to Thomas? I'm assuming Syrian philosophic/mystical — but he's not gnostic (in the sense of the contemporary movements), and he's not Judaic (as far as I know), he's not Platonic? So it's Christianity through a lens, but I'm not sure about the lens itself?

God bless,

Thomas