tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post1542900056655686586..comments2023-12-19T15:10:02.866-08:00Comments on ex cathedra: Is Mormonism Christian, continued?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-83343115379093377082011-11-10T22:54:39.526-08:002011-11-10T22:54:39.526-08:00@PNWReader: "expressed religious veneration o...@PNWReader: "expressed religious veneration of Jesus Christ" would include Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and even some Judaism, I suppose, as well as many western atheist religious worldviews, for instance, the perennialist philosophy of Traditionalists.<br /><br />Strictly speaking, Christian institutional "legitimacy" is intelligible only if from a declaration of the glory or charisma of Jesus Christ. This will involve "doctrine."<br /><br />It is said that prelates would never have declared any doctrine, nor had any legitimate governance, were it not for heretics, who threaten'd to steal sheep away from the prelates. But the need to define sheep stealers of this sort as "not Christian" only connected doctrine to the prelates. It isn't the entirety of doctrine. There is, obviously, the distinction between (Christian) heretics and non-Christians. Jesus began as rather a heretic of Judaism.<br /><br />Your example, though, I definitely affirm because mentioning "super-erogation" reminds us of the curious disappearance of many an item from Roman Catholicism. Are SBC prelates objecting to the doctrine of super-erogation in the Pacific North West?<br />er<br />cc. Joe Namath-RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-48618163348168457132011-11-10T21:48:03.517-08:002011-11-10T21:48:03.517-08:00I think I've missed something here. What'...I think I've missed something here. What's wrong with defining Christianity as "expressed religious veneration of Jesus Christ". The "regardless of doctrinal content" seems to be only for the purpose of establishing the one making that pronouncement as the arbiter of who is or is not a Christian, without demonstrating the the arbiter has any legitimacy. E.g., if the Southern Baptist Convention declares Roman Catholicism to be "not Christian" because of the doctrine of super-erogation, who is correct (and how would one know, and what difference would it make)?PNWReadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-87710703917462544582011-11-10T17:44:32.978-08:002011-11-10T17:44:32.978-08:00Perhaps Mormons are dualists but don't mention...Perhaps Mormons are dualists but don't mention dualism. ... Max Weber indicates that Joseph Smith only pretended to have a charisma (Economy and Society, 242, 1112), sc I guess that he didn't manifest or docetize into world via flesh that the point was spirituality or spiriting out of the world. In contrast to the Cathari who manifest dualism, and to Christians who manifest a pretense to condemn dualism, LDS don't even sin or are Amalekites.<br /><br />Accordingly, Mormons cannot be saved via forgiveness of sins, however much they may fail the formal requirements of LDS religion and regret these failures. Sin is not moral failure (Heidegger, What is Call'd Thinking? p. 105)<br /><br />If Christians are to Mormons as Jews are to Christians, it is Christians' duty to be "reprobate" vs LDS doctrine.<br /><br />Yours in expressed religious veneration of the Mahatma, MLK, Hildegarde of Bingen, Che, et al,<br />erAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com