User talk:R.E.S.A.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mormon

Hey, I'd like to discuss the "factually incorrect propaganda" that you removed which indicated Mormons are Christians. This has always been a very controversial topic, but I think we need to set forth a generic definition for "Christian." The fact that some religious bodies don't recognize Mormon's as Christian is important to mention, but doesn't affect whether or not Mormons are Christian. For instance, Catholics don't consider any other church that claims to be Christian to even be a Church, but that their overt acceptance of Christ somehow makes them Roman Catholic in some small way. An unbiased definition of Christian needs to be arrived at here, and I think it already has. Every other article on Christianity on Wiki considers Mormons Christian... it seems the general definition of a Christian is "one who claims to worship Christ." As to factually inaccurate... feel free to elaborate. Thanks! gdavies 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you plan to decide which groups are ones "who actually are in some way disciples of the person known to the Christian world at large as 'Christ'"? Do you intend to imply that all Christian sects agree perfectly among all elements of theology and interpret all verses of scriptures similarly? Such a claim would be utterly ridiculous and naive. I'm not going to attempt to address specific "questions" regarding theology that you've brought up (unless you really would like me to) because I know we are not going to agree/get anywhere with such a discussion. I don't agree with the edit that I believe you're referring to specifically, but I think User:FyzixFighter is right in that we should revert to "LDS describe themselves as Christian."

On a separate more tangential note, can you see how it might be (extremely) offensive to Mormons for people to nonchalantly file them in a non-Christian Cult box without a second glance? You haven't offered a workable definition for "Christian" besides an ambiguous and impossible to apply "one who is really a disciple of Christ." Perhaps your POV is different from millions of others (who may be LDS or otherwise who believe Mormons are Christian)? Why should your personal definition take precedence over theirs? Doesn't that fly in the face of NPOV? Once we start qualifying the definition (with an obvious and poorly masked agenda to exclude specific groups) of "Christian" is when we depart from NPOV. Why are differences between Protestant and Catholic theology ignored when deciding whether groups are Christian (compared with treatment of LDS movement faiths).

I think we can avoid this whole issue with a revert to the previous version, do you agree? Thanks for discussing this with me btw!! gdavies 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt bad taking up so much space there as well, but I enjoy discussing this as well... I just read 2 Thessalonians through that verse. I'll copy the KJV text here for my sake:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

I read it this way, "the Second Coming will not occur until there is a great apostasy and the arrival (or whatever you please) of the antichrist." I don't necessarily see an indication that the antichrist must come before the great apostasy, but that these are both prerequisites to the Second Coming of Christ. I can see your interpretation, which is (I hope I'm understanding you right) that the antichrist will come, the apostasy will occur, and then Christ will come for his second coming. That possibility certainly isn't ruled out by this passage of scripture, but I don't think it's necessarily proven over my interpretation... I think the order of the phrases tends to line up closer with my interpretation though personally... (except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition). Thoughts on this? As to the Matthew reference, I think there's a variety of interpretations, some of which allow for some degree of apostasy (small to total) and others which do not. One that allows for it... "it" in "prevail against it" might refer to the rock, meaning that the gates of hell won't/can't prevail against the gospel (I don't know if we both interpret this idiom the same way, do you interpret it as referring to paul or the gospel?), and the only thing that can bring people down (causing the great apostasy) is the devil "prevail" against them as individuals, by no fault of the gospel. I admit that there are several interpretations to most of these scriptures, and I don't believe my interpretation is any better than your own for its own sake. I admit that if I didn't believe in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation I would have a world of trouble making sense of biblical prophesies, and I admit that those volumes have deeply influenced my interpretation of the Bible. Some scriptures that I believe point (in some degree) to an apostasy of substantial proportions... Isaiah 60:2 "the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee." Which I interpret as the apostasy and subsequent restoration. Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." (I realize these Isaiah passages are symbolic in nature and thus very open for interpretation, and I'm just offering mine here) Referring to a the propensity to fall away (at least among the Galations), Galations 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:" I just came across an article by James Faulconer about the apostasy from an LDS perspective, I'm not sure if you'd enjoy that... anyway, I'm interested in your veiws on the apostasy (if you believe it will/has already occured). gdavies 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)