painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Other... Cherokee and many other First Nations religions are monotheistic.
wa:do
wa:do
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Other... Cherokee and many other First Nations religions are monotheistic.
wa:do
more than one I'm sure.Whoops, guess I forgot one.
Well, I "converted" into the religion I have now.So I take it that means you'd never consider another one besides a first nation religion?
It gets pretty close. We've got people writing about "heresies" like Sabellianism, Docetism, and Monophystism as early as the 2nd and 3rd century, which all deal with the nature of the Trinity, and therefore assumes a Trinity in the first place.Right, but that's due to what I listed as Reason #2. We don't buy into the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But hey, we're in good company. I've never yet found anyone who can provide me with any evidence at all that anyone in the apostolic era did, either.
But when John of Patmos wrote that God would condemn anyone who added to or removed from "this book", by "this book", he obviously meant the Biblical canon as would be established at the Synod of Hippo (including the books he didn't know about or hadn't been written yet) and not anything else. Of course this means the Book of Mormon is false.I think you're definitely right about that, and it was kind of a vicious circle kind of a reaction. We were shunned from the start, but we intentionally isolated ourselves to some degree, too. Mormons tended to vote as a block, for instance, and were therefore seen as a threat. Now, I think we're rejected more due to an irrational fear of the unknown than because of our actual doctrines. Take the Book of Mormon, for instance. The problem with it seems to be not so much what it teaches as the fact that it even exists. Most people don't have a clue what it teaches and yet they are convinced that whatever it is, it's false.
Personally, I find Sola Scriptura rather ridiculous all by itself. It's the doctrine not derived from the Bible that says all doctrines must be derived from the Bible. It's self-refuting.You're absolutely right. The fact that Catholics rely so heavily on Holy Tradition is possibly one reason they are less critical of our beliefs than the Protestants are. The belief in Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, is truly ridiculous. How anyone can claim to believe both in the doctrine of the Trinity and in Sola Scriptura is beyond me.
wow...that makes it rather tough. We don't have any religious books to read.... but if you want to read a good biography then "Black Elk Speaks" and "Lakota Woman" are great places to start.Out of curiosity pw, is there anywhere I can learn more about the Native American religions? It's an area I'm sadly ignorant of, since I've never known where to start, especially since I don't live in the US or Canada.
LoL, you'll probably have better luck with it than I am having right now.At the present time my roommate practices the Cherokee religion and is Cherokee. One of my roommates that is, so I suppose I'm fortunate and right now would be the time to learn about it.
Actually, there were a myriad of Christian sects as early as the end of the first century, and we believe that an apostasy had actually started even while the apostles were alive (which is not to say that they were a part of it). Clearly, questions as to the nature of God and the relationship between the members of the Godhead was an issue quite soon following Christ's death, but there is absolutely no indication in any of the books in the Bible or in any of the writings of the Apostles themselves to indicate that they viewed God the way He came to be described by the fourth and fifth century creeds.It gets pretty close. We've got people writing about "heresies" like Sabellianism, Docetism, and Monophystism as early as the 2nd and 3rd century, which all deal with the nature of the Trinity, and therefore assumes a Trinity in the first place.
Not at all.I suppose this doesn't get you right to the apostles, but it may overlap with the tail end of when the books of the Bible were being written, which I suppose might create theological issues for Mormons.
Of course, it would only mean that the parts of the Book of Mormon written after Revelation was recorded were false. Actually, the Book of Mormon isn't part of "this book" John was writing about, so the argument really doesn't apply at all. Besides, God never has said He was going to stop talking or that only the people residing in one small part of the world had the right to personally hear His word.But when John of Patmos wrote that God would condemn anyone who added to or removed from "this book", by "this book", he obviously meant the Biblical canon as would be established at the Synod of Hippo (including the books he didn't know about or hadn't been written yet) and not anything else. Of course this means the Book of Mormon is false.
We've always accepted the KJV's list of canonical books as authoritative. It would be virtually impossible, and essentially pointless for us to try to compile a completely new biblical canon since so many of the writings mentioned by name in the Bible have since been lost. People always accuse us of denegrading the Bible, but it's a completely unfounded charge. We value the Bible highly and study from it as often as we study from the Book of Mormon. Since we believe the doctrines that are missing from the Bible have been re-established anyway, we take from the Bible what we can and from other sources what it missing.Actually, this leads me to a serious question: if the LDS Church preaches that the "Great Apostasy" occurred before (and maybe long before) the Council of Nicea and the Synod of Hippo, why do they use the list of books from the Synod of Hippo (with later Protestant revisions) to establish their Biblical canon? Was there ever an LDS council or what-have-you that actually did go through an exercise where they said "okay, Mormons - 1 Maccabees, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., are out; Genesis, Galatians, 2 Timothy, etc. are in" that just happened to match the current Protestant canon, or did the LDS Church just always accept the KJV's list of canonical books as authoritative?
Of course it is, but try telling that to an Evangelical Christian.Personally, I find Sola Scriptura rather ridiculous all by itself. It's the doctrine not derived from the Bible that says all doctrines must be derived from the Bible. It's self-refuting.
This is not saying you will convert, or I will convert, it's a poll to see which Monotheistic faith you think you could identify most with. Explaination of your choice or choices would also be nice, because I love the insight I get on here.
Yes, it is. We believe that He has a "physical" body in that it is corporeal, i.e. it is a body of flesh and bones like that of His Son. It is, however, not a mortal body but an immortal one. In other words, God is not subject to disease, injury or disfigurement or death. Although He is physically "in Heaven," His power and knowledge extend throughout the universe.Katzpur, or any other LDS here, I have a question, and it's something I've often wondered about LDS theology: I've read that the LDS believe that God the Father has a physical body. Is this true?
I'm not sure I understand why it wouldn't be possible, as with God, all things are.And if so, how do you believe that is possible?
If I've answered your question, or can easily explain something I failed to make clear, feel free to ask it here on this thread. If it's going to involve a more lenghthy discussion, it might be a good idea to start a new thread on the LDS DIR.If I need to, I'll start a new thread on this topic.
Are you counting monism and 'all facets are one' paganism as well?
I'd probably go for Feri paganism. Zoroastrianism ranks highly as well.
I am sure that it is known that Mormonism or Latter Day Saint Christianity is a separate entity to Catholicism, the Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Church, and Protestantism.
Some say about the cultic status of Jehovah's Witnesses along with Mormons... the Jehovah's Witnesses came from the Bible Student movement, which began with Charles Taze Russell. Some say that they are separate... but they just separate themselves.
Every group has schisms. Some just do better at denying it.I did not know there was another group founded on Russell's teachings besides the JW's
What would be gained by denying it, though? I mean, I think of my own religion as a prime example. There are perhaps 150 currently-existing offshoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeff's group) is probably the best known of them. There is no way in the world we would want to be associated with them. Since the general public is so determined to see all "Mormons" as one group whose members hold somewhat varying beliefs, it is definitely not to our advantage to deny that this schism exists! We want people to know that we are two entirely different Churches. Why would that not be the case with other groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses?Every group has schisms. Some just do better at denying it.