DiscussMormonism.com

In antiquity, people argued and shed blood over theology. Arian or Athanasian. Monophysite. Docetic. Nicaean. Chalcedonian.

Over time, starting with the Council of Nicaea, a certain orthodox theology took root. It did so in fits and starts. It did so with arguments, fist fights, political strife, and bloodshed, until the majority of the Christian world accepted the Trinitarian theology of the creeds.

It is a fascinating history, and it makes a certain kind of sense when you follow it blow by blow.

But I still don’t think that orthodox theology should be the measure of authentic Christian identity. There were three centuries of Christianity before Nicaea. There were many thousands, even millions of non-Trinitarian Christians following Nicaea.

I get the idea that every group will set its own standard for belonging. I just don’t think that salvation is found in adhering to the ivory-tower details of theological statements.

Robert Boylan could win every single debate by simply appealing to the primacy of modern revelation obtained through modern Mormon prophets.

I suppose he is trying to make their revelations seem more legitimate and plausible by appealing to the history of Christianity, but there is nothing in Mormon doctrine that says modern revelation needs to correspond nicely with any of it.

Russell Nelson could declare infant baptism a requirement for salvation tomorrow and that would be, within Mormonism, scriptural doctrine. No muss, no fuss. He has all the authority.

Most Christians don't think salvation is obtain by ivory tower-ism either, it's obtained by the grace of Jesus transforming the sinner into a new creature.

Even Jonathan Edwards said that election can't be determined by outward characteristics or confessions of faith, the elect of God could technically be "sleepers" in all things considered markers in Christianity, although often outward characteristics do server as markers.

For those of us who know religion is a sham, we understand that none of the fighting is really theological, it's economic. The reason why Mormons aren't part of the club is due to their heavy proselyting program and their own theological and cultural silo as the only true church. Christian ministries have been known to condemn each other as demonic over territory disputes that surface as minor theological differences, splits that superficially are over doctrine but really over the strong personalities of ministers and a lot is at stake if members of the congregation go with the other guy. And so labels of "cult" or "demonic" can be applied to fellow travelers with very similar theology -- without the theological gap like between EVs and Mormons -- if money is at stake.

“Some Mormon blog somewhere, it’s a complete mystery” wrote: In a comment posted elsewhere online, Professor [personal information deleted], who [personal information deleted], wrote the following, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:54 pm

In antiquity, people argued and shed blood over theology. Arian or Athanasian. Monophysite. Docetic. Nicaean. Chalcedonian.

Over time, starting with the Council of Nicaea, a certain orthodox theology took root. It did so in fits and starts. It did so with arguments, fist fights, political strife, and bloodshed, until the majority of the Christian world accepted the Trinitarian theology of the creeds.

It is a fascinating history, and it makes a certain kind of sense when you follow it blow by blow.

But I still don’t think that orthodox theology should be the measure of authentic Christian identity. There were three centuries of Christianity before Nicaea. There were many thousands, even millions of non-Trinitarian Christians following Nicaea.

I get the idea that every group will set its own standard for belonging. I just don’t think that salvation is found in adhering to the ivory-tower details of theological statements.

In fact, I am happy to say that I argued for a similar point of view in Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (1992, 1998).

You really set him off, Kish.

I wonder if the same Mormon blog ever publishes the various other names of kiwi57.

I gather that kiwi is quite sensitive about having his in real life identity associated with his kiwi id, and with his handle on another Mormon-themed discussion board.

The timing makes me think it’s some sort of “payback” for this board uncovering Mike Parker as Peter Pan.

malkie wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:35 pm

I wonder if the same Mormon blog ever publishes the various other names of kiwi57.

I gather that kiwi is quite sensitive about having his in real life identity associated with his kiwi id, and with his handle on another Mormon-themed discussion board.

A quick google search associates Kiwi57 with Russell McGregor, an Adjunct Professor of History in the College of Arts, Society and Education at James Cook University in Australia. He doesn’t seem to post as often at SeN anymore though.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:25 pm

malkie wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:35 pm

I wonder if the same Mormon blog ever publishes the various other names of kiwi57.

I gather that kiwi is quite sensitive about having his in real life identity associated with his kiwi id, and with his handle on another Mormon-themed discussion board.

A quick google search associates Kiwi57 with Russell McGregor, an Adjunct Professor of History in the College of Arts, Society and Education at James Cook University in Australia. He doesn’t seem to post as often at SeN anymore though.

Hah!

That probably just shows how out of date I am. Or how faulty my memory is. Or both.

Was Russ also a mod on the MADD board?

malkie wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:43 am

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:25 pm

A quick google search associates Kiwi57 with Russell McGregor, an Adjunct Professor of History in the College of Arts, Society and Education at James Cook University in Australia. He doesn’t seem to post as often at SeN anymore though.

Hah!

That probably just shows how out of date I am. Or how faulty my memory is. Or both.

Was Russ also a mod on the MADD board?

I’m just going by what Google said, I don’t know the whole history since I’m a relative newcomer.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:54 pm

In antiquity, people argued and shed blood over theology. Arian or Athanasian. Monophysite. Docetic. Nicaean. Chalcedonian.

Over time, starting with the Council of Nicaea, a certain orthodox theology took root. It did so in fits and starts. It did so with arguments, fist fights, political strife, and bloodshed, until the majority of the Christian world accepted the Trinitarian theology of the creeds.

It is a fascinating history, and it makes a certain kind of sense when you follow it blow by blow.

But I still don’t think that orthodox theology should be the measure of authentic Christian identity. There were three centuries of Christianity before Nicaea. There were many thousands, even millions of non-Trinitarian Christians following Nicaea.

I get the idea that every group will set its own standard for belonging. I just don’t think that salvation is found in adhering to the ivory-tower details of theological statements.

What happened with me was that God brought me to the point to where I understood that I was much different than Jesus, and I wanted what I saw in Jesus and not myself. He showed me who I was as compared to a holy God. It was around eleven years old. I can’t say I knew much theology at the time.

Looking back, what I do know now is that someone preached the word of Christ, He pierced my heart through the word of Christ, and I was changed.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Heb. 4:12

As Heb. 1 says, in these last days God has spoken to us by his Son. I recommend for persons to read the New Testament as a child.