PBS Special on Mormon Church

[MaxBuck]

who is to say that the term wine is not refering to juice (I know many will disagree with this, but think about it)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Come on, now. Wine was, and remains, fermented fruit juice. I know the Mormons and Methodists have problems with this, but that's their problem. If you want to play around with definitions, let me introduce you to Mr. Bill Clinton. He's the expert.

 

[afgolfer]

i will. go back and read the story again. the head waiter even commented that the host had broken tradition by saving the best for last. i.e. usually, the best wine was served first, and then after the guests were all banged up, they served them the cheap stuff, because no one would either know or care by then.

could it be that best was meaning the freshest or pure juice -- least fermented?

 

[afgolfer]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Come on, now. Wine was, and remains, fermented fruit juice. I know the Mormons and Methodists have problems with this, but that's their problem. If you want to play around with definitions, let me introduce you to Mr. Bill Clinton. He's the expert.

do definitions change over 2000 years? now adays, they change from generation to generation.

 

[sandgk]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Come on, now. Wine was, and remains, fermented fruit juice. I know the Mormons and Methodists have problems with this, but that's their problem. If you want to play around with definitions, let me introduce you to Mr. Bill Clinton. He's the expert.

Let's see you have the Greeks drunk on Wine, the Romans drunk on wine, the Egyptians drunk on wine (and lots of beer)

Case closed - wine was widely known, widely drunk and definitely alcoholic, even in ancient times.

 

[sandgk]

could it be that best was meaning the freshest or pure juice -- least fermented?

No - because that would have royally pissed of those wanting a good drink at a wedding!!

 

[sandgk]

do definitions change over 2000 years? now adays, they change from generation to generation.

The definition of flogging a dead horse seems to have remained unchanged even in the information age.

 

[Taosman]

Never a dead horse around when you need one!

 

[MaxBuck]

could it be that best was meaning the freshest or pure juice -- least fermented?

This is about as likely as any of us converting to Wolverine fans, I'd think.

 

[Muck]

could it be that best was meaning the freshest or pure juice -- least fermented?

The passage paraphrased by lv is John 2:10:

KJV - "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

NLT - A host always serves the best wine first,” he said. “Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!

NIV - "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

IMO it's pretty cut & dry.

Let's see you have the Greeks drunk on Wine, the Romans drunk on wine, the Egyptians drunk on wine (and lots of beer)

Case closed - wine was widely known, widely drunk and definitely alcoholic, even in ancient times.

Well wine usage by other cultures isn't really a slam dunk.

However Jewish custom clearly did include the drinking of fermented wine and good 'ole Jeshua was a Jew you know.

BTW the Greek word "oinos" does specifically refer to fermented beverages and is used for other alcoholic drinks besides wine.

 

[Gatorubet]

If you try to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, you're a chrisitan in my book.. I would go as far to say if you live a good life trying to emulate Christ, you would be considered a christian.

Excellent!! You just made Buddha's followers all Christian, as much of the Golden Rule is expressed in that fascinating religion.

Im keeping this out of the other thread unless everyone else wants to debate what being "christian" is.. i personally don't think it matters and it's just a label.. im not a subscriber to 'your saved because you got an imaginary title' bullshit. its how you live life.. same thing with being defined a "christian."

Oh, and for the record.. you're rude to more than just one BP poster.. you remind me of a little of jabba da weis with you're self proclaimed brilliance and smug ass attitude

Lord! Somewhere in your early manufacture you missed the sarcasm chip. I never called myself brilliant. All this time my discussion has centered on one simple topic: whether the LDS Church with its belief in men becoming Gods and God being a man was in any way a doctrine that could be called Christian. I have repeatedly complimented the LDS members I have known, and never told Golf to quit the LDS and join any other flavor. Yet you bow up and attack me for concepts I have never advocated. You say "i'm not a subscriber to 'your saved because you got an imaginary title'

What mushroom tea/Makers Mark/peyote cocktail are you imbibing to come up with that assertion? If you don't like me, ding me, or skip me, or block me, but for God's sake spend a few bucks on a reading comprehension class, and quit inventing positions and ascribing them to people simply because you think them smug. Insults are no biggie. Changing my positions pisses me off.

 

[Gatorubet]

Wow! I wish I would have seen this thread earlier as there is so much on which to comment, but I guess I will add my two cents into the debate of whether or not Mormonism falls within Christianity.

To be completely honest, I don't know enough about Mormon beliefs to answer it with 100% confidence, but I would say at this point no.

However, there is a distinction I would like to raise that I think is very important: while a doctrine of beliefs may by Christian, it does not follow that the people who claim to follow them are Christian; likewise, although a doctrine of beliefs may not be Christian, there may be Christians who claim to follow them.

What I am getting at here is that I think all who are Christian can agree that not all who attend our churches are Christian. There are Methodists, Anglicans, Serbian Orthodox, Presbyterians, Messianic Jews, Pentacostals, etc who all rightfully claim these label because of there church membership, but who are not Christian because they do not accept what t BuckeyeScot provided as a very nice statement of the defining issue of our identity:



Nevertheless, I can also speak from experience that in churches that have gone astray from the faith there are Christians. Take Catholicism in which I was raised. While I don't believe the Pope is antichrist or the Catholic Church is the Beast like some try to argue, I will state that it is one of the most polluted forms of Christianity in existence to the point where it is on the edge of losing its right to claim the title (official acceptance of Mary as co-reedemer, which is being considered, will be the final tipping point). However, I became a Christian within Catholicism and remained as such for 7 years before leaving it. I know many people who remain practicing Catholics whom if you speak with them about their faith, it becomes obvious they are Christians.

My current understanding of Mormonism is that as an official church it is not Christian for many of the reasons already given in this thread. Despite this, I do believe there are individuals within the Mormon faith who are Christians because their faith is defined by the quote from above.

Of course, the truly sad commentary about all of this is that there are so many denominations. Christianity was never meant to be so divided and it is testimony to 2000 years of man's traditions and teachings entering into those given to us by God. The profane has been mixed with the holy, and the result has become the sad history of Christians fighting are arguing against other Christians.

Can't say I disagree with any of this. The biggest reason not to be a Christian is to take a hard look at a lot of those who say they are.

 

[Gatorubet]

From what I understand, the restrictions on who enters the Temple are more accurately compared to those of marriage. There are in many religions privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage that are not (morally) available to those who have not entered into that covenant. Temple entry is similar - available to all believers, but requiring the appropriate covenants.

While the arguments and comparisons between religions are interesting, they strike me as highly unnecessary in this particular debate. If you believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, then whatever is offered as restoration/revelation/etc. has to be accepted, and figuring out how everything fits together is an appropriate pursuit. If you don't, argument about the setup or doctrine of the Church is useless, because there is no basis for any of it.

That about sums it up, and it a far better answer than the possibility of mobs of torch bearing Christians assaulting the Temple. 'Course, if you look at the response to Mormons historically, that used to be a valid point, as they were run out of Missouri and Illinois by mobs. That policy is likely a response to that very experience, and can be easily understood.

 

[Muck]

'Course, if you look at the response to Mormons historically, that used to be a valid point, as they were run out of Missouri and Illinois by mobs.

Yeah funny how the locals get riled up when you burn down their newspaper...

 

[BrutusBobcat]

The primary reason that Christians and Christian churches do not regard Mormons as Christians is because the books of the Bible have been very well established for 1700 years or so. While there are different translations in use, and different interpretations of Scripture, there is unanimity as to what books constitute Scripture.

By adding the writings of Smith in the form of the Book of Mormon, Mormons uniquely deviate from that accepted norm.

Christians simply do not accept additional writings beyond the end of the Revelation of John, and by adding their own book, Mormons step well outside of orthodoxy.

Second, all Christian churches subscribe to the Nicene Creed. This is taught and recited in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

--------------

If you believe in all of that, you are a Christian, as classically defined since the 4th century AD.

If this business about some people becoming gods is an actual teaching, then that's clearly doesn't meet the standard of "We believe in one God". I would be concerned deeply about that, to say the least.

 

[Gatorubet]

Yeah funny how the locals get riled up when you burn down their newspaper...

The bigger issues with the Mormons arose when they descended in numbers on western communities, with a resulting change on local politics and economy due to block voting for Mormon candidates and insular socialist practices. That, coupled with a deep distrust and emnity of polygamy, and it was indeed a recipe for civil unrest.

I was not being an apologist for either side, just saying that the Mormon Church historically has had a deep persecution complex and a tendency towards secrecy, which may explain the hesitation to allow access to its Temples and rituals. It is only recently that new members were not required to perform a throat slashing sign when promising not to reveal Temple secrets...according to articles I've read. I have no idea if that is accurate.