• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If You were likely to convert to any Monotheistic faith, which would it be?

Pick what applies for you


  • Total voters
    38

Ilisrum

Active Member
I'd probably go with Judaism or Unitarian Christianity. Islam appeals to me in some ways, but it's too legalistic for my blood.

My knowledge of the Baha'i faith is limited, but it looks like something I'd give a shot.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
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.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
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.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
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.

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.

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. :facepalm:
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. ;)

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?

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.
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.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
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.
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.

You can also try various nations web pages... they are great for information about history, culture and so on.

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
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.
LoL, you'll probably have better luck with it than I am having right now. :D

wa:do
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
It's hard to find information on Native American religious beliefs, because, like painted wolf said, they have no scriptures. All of their traditions are oral, and the best way to learn is to go to a reservation and learn from the elders. I am part Native American (I think most Americans are in some way; I'm not sure what tribe, but my aunt has been doing geneologies on the family, until her Firbromyalgia (sp?) caused her to not be able to work on it), and I have become interested in learning more about it as well. I almost had the chance to leave Indiana not too long back and move to Arizona, where it would have been much easier to learn about it, but it unfortunately never happened.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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.
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.

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.
Not at all.

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. ;)
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.

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?
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.

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.
Of course it is, but try telling that to an Evangelical Christian.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
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? And if so, how do you believe that is possible? If I need to, I'll start a new thread on this topic.
 

GabrielWithoutWings

Well-Known Member
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.

Are you counting monism and 'all facets are one' paganism as well?

I'd probably go for Feri paganism. Zoroastrianism ranks highly as well.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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?
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.

And if so, how do you believe that is possible?
I'm not sure I understand why it wouldn't be possible, as with God, all things are.

If I need to, I'll start a new thread on this topic.
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.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
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 don't consider Monism or Monoaltry to be Monotheism. Most religious scholars classify them as special types of Polytheism.
 

ResLight

Praising Yahweh!
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. :D

Charles Taze Russell preached a message that is almost the opposite of that which the Jehovah's Witnesses preach. Likewise, Russell, being a non-sectarian, did not believe in an organization such as Jehovah's Witnesses, and actively preached against such organizations. After Russell died, yes, Rutherford did have the by-laws of the legal entity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, changed, and he proceeded to use that legal entity to create his idea of "Jehovah's visible organization", almost the very opposite of what the Bible Students had believed for several decades. Futhermore, Rutherford denied the central teaching of salvation -- the ransom for all -- that the Bible Students had been preaching for several decades, and replaced that central doctrine with his organization doctrine and fear of eternal destruction in Armageddon if one did not come in line with his new organization.

By the year 1930, the earlier Bible Students movement as a whole (represented by the majority) had rejected Rutherford's new organization and his new gospel, and continued to preach the "good news of great joy for all people" as they had been for decades. The Bible Students (as a whole, represented by the majority) did not become "Jehovah's Witnesses".

The Bible Students today are indeed separate from and preach a message that is almost the opposite of the present-day Watchtower, as they still preach the ransom for all, the good news of great joy for all the people. The Bible Students therefore preach a message that is almost the opposite of the alleged "good news" that includes the message of eternal destruction for almost all living (including their children -- all without any benefit from the ransom for all) as is being preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I did not know there was another group founded on Russell's teachings besides the JW's
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Every group has schisms. Some just do better at denying it.
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?
 
Top