From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: MORMONISM ??????
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:23:32 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

I sure don't want to start all over again, but there are just a few
things here that bug me.  It seems there are a lot of non-Mormons who
consider themselves experts on Mormonism.

ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
>
>I'd like to discuss this with you a relative scale, but since I don't know 
>about your beliefs in God, that's a tall order.  Mormons call themselves
>Christians.  Most of the Christians that I know that are knowledgeable
>(even marginally) about Mormom beliefs think that they are not Christians.

Well, if you've followed the discussion, you'll see that a lot of
so-called Christians who have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate
in excruciating detail just how and why Mormons aren't Christians have
instead shown that they aren't very knowledgeable about Mormonism.

>In order to be a Christian, you must accept Christ as God and Savior.
>Since Mormons don't believe that Jesus is God, they are not Christians.
>To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ.  If you don't believe
>that Christ is God, then you really can't follow him.

It's a very astute observation that Mormons don't fit the Protestant
or Catholic definition of Christianity.  They do, however, fit the
Mormon definition of Christianity.  Now I don't believe you're really
so presumptuous as to try to define Christianity for the whole world.

Mormons aren't trinitarian.  That much has been obvious from the
start.  But we do believe Jesus is God.  We just don't believe he is
God the Father, or that he shares some mystical divine nature.  We
believe that they are separate and distinct persons, and that Jesus
was "in the beginning with God."

>Instead, Mormons follow Mormonism.  A man named Joseph Smith claimed
>he discovered a text (the book of Mormon) which says that Jesus visited
>American Indians and ministered to them.

Nit-picky, but we don't claim that the people described in the Book of
Mormon are the American Indians.  The American Indians (and the South
American Indians for that matter) have a varied ethnicity.

>The "orignal" text has conveniently
>been lost,

It hasn't been lost.  It was given back to the heavenly messenger who
directed Smith to it, and he "has them until this day."  Same problem
-- we can't look at it today, but that shouldn't deter the serious
scholar.

>The book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in several ways,

The Bible contradicts the Bible in several ways.  Nobody ever said it
was perfect.  But seriously, Mormons use the Book of Mormon and the
Bible side by side with no difficulty.

>In addition, it teaches things like
>unlimited polygamy.

It does?  Most critics take great delight in noting that the Book of
Mormon teaches AGAINST polygamy.

But in truth, it teaches that monogamy is the general rule and when
God so desires he allows polygamy.  Hardly "unlimited" polygamy.

>as Mormoms are not even accepted as Christians.

I'm going to be a little uncharacteristically harsh here.  I don't
particularly care whether you or anyone else "accepts" me as
Christian.  I call myself a Christian, and I don't think you or anyone
else has the right to tell me I'm not.  I think I'd rather leave that
decision up to my Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ.

If I define Christianity in terms of what I believe about Christ, then
you don't fit.  How does that make you feel?  Probably a little
indignant, and justly so.  I don't define Christianity in terms of
beliefs that must be specifically held or rejected.  Such definitions
are artificially restrictive.  If you claim that you're following the
teachings of Jesus Christ, then I think you have the right to call
yourself a Christian.

Mormons claim to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  They
have a right to call themselves Christians.

>Mormons claim that they believe in the
>Bible in spite of the fact that their book and beliefs strongly disagree
>with the Bible.

This should be phrased "...strongly disagree with how I read the
Bible."  Opinions are fine.  I think it's unreasonable to expect
everyone to get the same impressions from the Bible, or from any book.
That one of us reads it one way and another of us reads it another way
doesn't necessarily make either of us wrong.

But I do have a question: Have you ever read the Book of Mormon, or
have you just read what others have written about the Book of Mormon?

You see, I've read both and studied both in depth.  We seem to have
reached different conclusions, and I just want to make sure we've done
the same level of homework.

>Where the two collide, they believe  the book of Mormon.

We don't believe they collide.  At least not in the way you seem to
imply.

>So, by reading the Gospels, you can at least make your own conclusion
>about whether or not the Bible and the Book of Mormon are in agreement
>(that is, is Mormonism a rational belief, especially in light of the
>Bible.)

Well, here we agree, and I'm glad to see we can end this on a happy,
non-antagonistic note.  By all means, read the Book of Mormon.  Read
the Bible.  Come to your own conclusions.  That's the magic of
religion.  You don't have to take anyone's word for it -- you can do
the experiment yourself.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2