Comment by themodelplumber | Hacker News Reader

Comment by themodelplumber | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

themodelplumber

I'm a Mormon, too, and just wanted to point out a couple of things:

> we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month.

Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example (edit: or people who just don't wanna)), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.

> For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner.

Many will frequently shift their fasting times. I do. Just posting this because I often talk to people who tell me exactly what I believe, because they read it online.

> In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits

I'm just another anecdote, but I have noticed no personal health benefits. What I would call thinking or meditation benefits, perhaps. I have frequently felt relief that while I may have overeaten the day before a fast, my belt will usually fit nicely on the following fast day. ;)

> Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.

Indeed. I wanted to put that in my initial comment, and forgot. If you are sick, pregnant, or there are other health concerns, or doctor's orders to prevent you from fasting, then you don't.

Also, you are encouraged to fast more frequently for spiritual matters indeed.

"what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role"

Isn't that the other way round? As a non-mormon I'm not about to call anyone prophetic/visionary.

By "call," maybe you are inferring belief but I mean it with no belief and even plenty of skepticism implied.

Can you separate belief from labelling someone prohpetic/visionary? I label a dog a dog because I believe it's a dog. I don't call a cat a dog with plenty of skepticism. I'm not going to give anyone the label of prophetic/visionary, even with plenty of skepticism. As a non-mormon I consider the prophetic/visionary concept to be fiction, and won't use it on anyone because I don't consider it possible - skepticism doesn't even begin to enter the equation - and labelling someone as something I consider them not to be would be odd. I might just as well label them president.

Sometimes we are labeled. You may label yourself Harvard graduate as much as you want but if Harvard says you aren't then you aren't. You may call yourself a Catholic but if thevCatholic Church says you aren't, you simply aren't.

Sure you can. To give an example outside of Mormonism, you can say that the Oracle at Delphi had a prophetic / visionary role within ancient Greek culture, without having to believe in the Oracle's prophetic visions.

I have heard Christians use the term "prophetic". Search Amazon for the term and you will find many books on the topic.

Are mormons not christians?

They are Christians in the same sense as Moslems are.

No. Muslims believe only parts of the Christian bible are divine. Mormons believe all parts of both the old and the new testament are divine, and addition believe in a third book (that I've only read the intro to) which has additional tales of Jesus Christ and companions.

They are as Christian as catholics are, perhaps even more so as in my opinion they follow his ideology a whole lot better.

Unless Muslims believe in Jesus as deity (and salvation through Christ's atonement) as Mormons do, that seems an unlikely statement.

Mormons do get drawn outside of Christianity by some christians for a variety of reasons (non-trinitarian, open canon, cosmological background quasi-polytheism), and some people have suggested classifying the faith as another Abrahamic one as a means of sidestepping that discussion, which may be where one could get the idea that the comparison to Muslims is a good one. But if Mormons are outside mainstream Christianity, it's only marginally so.

The point I was making is that both Islam and Mormonism are based on Christianity and so share many common beliefs, but they both extend on this base. Personally I find Mormonism a fascinating religion, but I do think it has moved past being just another branch of Christianity.

Mormons claim Christianity and espouse some Christian principals (i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world), although many of their beliefs (i.e. God is an evolved man and through adherence to Mormon doctrine men can become Gods after death) put them well outside the realm of what is considered mainstream Christianity.

I'm not sure these additional beliefs necessarily disqualify them as "Christian" though as they do appear to have retained most of the fundamental basics.....

I suppose it depends on ones definition of Christian. No doubt plenty of "Christian" denominations consider that others aren't.

"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the Cross" -Nietzsche

>i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world

That was never a christian belief to begin with.

The atonement was (supposedly) because of God's own incarnation as Christ, our of love, not because of some blood offering to God (i.e. the crucifixion, which was not even meant as such, anyway).

I realize modern religion has tried to blunt the concept (it's all about love etc)... but blood atonement figures very prominently in the doctrine presented in the bible...

Romans3:25, Hebrews9:22, Rev1:5 for instance. There are plenty more. Very prominent concept. Which is why up until recently there was plenty of talk about being "washed in the blood" in Christian churches.

(I believe the manifest brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness of the concept was one of the primary things leading to my rejection of Christianity at a very early age.... no offense to anyone's particular faith... just my point of view)

I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...

I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.

> bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more

I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins.

FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.

My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was for all sins, past and future.

The three verses cited on blood atonement are from the NT.

I realize the idea is that the blood of Jesus was supposed to end blood atonement and usher in a new era. However, I never thought this idea was reasonable, never identified with a God who would set such a system up, and never felt that this idea at the core of a religion would ultimately lead to positive outcomes or really much more than continued barbarism and cruelty, but I'm not going to argue with your faith.

I just think Jesus was more or less successfully trying to fix all of the problems he saw with the religion he was born into. The OT God is quite evil (or at least does/allows/commands evil things). A God who doesn't require sacrifice, forgives sins as they are confessed and eschews violence is quite a step up.

Given what he had to work with I think he did pretty well.

The redemption of sinful people via blood sacrifice is the single strongest theme in the entire Christian canon (the Bible). Jesus' death as payment for other people's sins is prophesied repeatedly, and confirmed after the fact. e.g. Isaiah (written 700 years before Jesus' birth) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&versi... and this letter to the Hebrews written about 30 years after his death https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9-10&ve...

The "standard" beliefs of Christianity are expressed in the Nicene creed[1][2]. Even recent evangelical churches believe the things listed there, although they probably don't recite the creed itself.

Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_betwee... (note that "catholic" in this means "diverse" and doesn't specifically refer to the Catholic church)

[2] the differences between the two creeds listed there are basically what split the Orthodox church from the Western church and indirectly led to the fall of Constantinople. So some people consider them fairly important, but others don't.

I agree with you. Many groups would claim another group isn't Christian, especially as the definition of "Christian" has shifted and changed throughout the years. A good article outlining some main points is here - https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng. (for the record I am a Mormon, and a Christian. :)

That sentence is telling you what they call themselves in language that you understand, not what you would call them.

Religions use a bunch of jargon. "Prophetic role" is descriptive where their particular jargon word is not.

Edit: you might refer to Bob: "Bob, the one who calls himself a prophet".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com