The Mormon Church is "The Church"?

[Evangelical]

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for, this is where the Holy Spirit recovered truths.

2. Union of the church with the state and abandonment of religious liberty by the Reformers. Just like the Catholic church they fought in many battles. Alignment of church with state was just like Constantine and the Roman Empire.

3. Persecution of believers by Protestant state churches - by now these state churches look very much like the Catholic church.

By the end of the Reformation, there were entities which looked very much like the Catholic entity before. The difference between the two was only superficial. They all engaged in violence to solve their problems. They were all aligned with the state, notably, the Church of England.

If stages 2. and 3. did not occur, there would have been no need for the Puritan movement, the Pentecostal movement, the Brethren movement, and the recovery.

These are historical facts, you can read about them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for, this is where the Holy Spirit recovered truths.

2. Union of the church with the state and abandonment of religious liberty by the Reformers. Just like the Catholic church they fought in many battles. Alignment of church with state was just like Constantine and the Roman Empire.

3. Persecution of believers by Protestant state churches - by now these state churches look very much like the Catholic church.

Should we not consider all the LAWSUITS filed by LSM against other Christians as the union of the LOCAL church with the state?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for

You are framing the argument in a way that may have made sense in 16th century Europe but hardly in 21st century global Christianity. What about the EOC? What about the churches that split after Chalcedon in the 4th century? Your argument seems to assume they didn't ever exist. Even though they didn't exist, practically speaking, for Luther (he was persecuted by the RCC), they should exist for us, in our thinking of church history. Why frame an argument of historical narrative so contrary to the facts on the ground (there are [and were] more Christians than merely those affiliated with Protestants and RCC)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You are framing the argument in a way that may have made sense in 16th century Europe but hardly in 21st century global Christianity. What about the EOC? What about the churches that split after Chalcedon in the 4th century? Your argument seems to assume they didn't ever exist. Even though they didn't exist, practically speaking, for Luther (he was persecuted by the RCC), they should exist for us, in our thinking of church history. Why frame an argument of historical narrative so contrary to the facts on the ground (there are [and were] more Christians than merely those affiliated with Protestants and RCC)?

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

Yes, just read Broadbent's seminal work, "The Pilgrim Church" about the primitive ekklesia in the dark ages. There have have always been a remnant that didn't take man's way (and were often persecuted for it).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

I still don't see the relevance or that it changes much. Why would we not be concerned mostly with European/Western church history?

I think that viewing history in such a way - "Catholic to Reformation" is characteristic of evangelicalism as a whole. Catholicism also pretends that these other groups did not exist and that absolutely everyone was Catholic.

This way of viewing the world is common. Take American history for example. It is now known that maybe the Chinese or Phonecians discovered America first. I don't see those historical facts changing the narrative, nor is it so relevant.

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

The EOC is obscure? The Syrians and Ethiopians are unheard of? Maybe in Germany in the late Middle Ages, but today?

In one sense I understand, given that it was my view once; it's also common to find a conscious, resolute myopathy, a total lack of curiosity when that's necessary to maintain the coherence of one's narrative. (And it fits on a thread about Mormonism!)

But the ignorance level of a medieval Western Europe is hardly appropriate for what purports to be a global Christianity in the 21st century (again, note the similarity to Mormonism).

WL once told us that no one had taught him anything new in 45 years. That's probably one of the most telling things he ever said.

Originally Posted by LSM Church History

There was Jesus, and then there was the Church (Matthew 16 is cited; Acts 2; Acts 10). Then the Church got degraded (2 Timothy; Revelation 2 & 3). Then there were 1,500 years where nothing of interest happened. Then Luther began the Recovery out of Great Harlot Babylon RCC with Justification. Then Darby & Brethren recovered 'Christ' in OT types and figures. Then we recovered the Church!

The internal cohesiveness of the Luther/Darby/Nee/Lee segment in the Recovered Church History needs a 1,500-year blank spot: "No light there; nothing to see folks; move along!" Of course LSM may occasionally wave Fenelon and Guyon as props; pad teachings with quotes from Augustine & Jerome. But one finds a stubbornly-held antipathy for anything outside their primitivist, massively truncated story. The level of determined and conscious ignorance, of "shutting out" required to hold it all together is amazing. It's really quite a window into psychopathology.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The EOC is obscure? The Syrians and Ethiopians are unheard of? Maybe in Germany in the late Middle Ages, but today?

In one sense I understand, given that it was my view once; it's also common to find a conscious, resolute myopathy, a total lack of curiosity when that's necessary to maintain the coherence of one's narrative. (And it fits on a thread about Mormonism!)

But the ignorance level of a medieval Western Europe is hardly appropriate for what purports to be a global Christianity in the 21st century (again, note the similarity to Mormonism).

WL once told us that no one had taught him anything new in 45 years. That's probably one of the most telling things he ever said.



The internal cohesiveness of the Luther/Darby/Nee/Lee segment in the Recovered Church History needs a 1,500-year blank spot: "No light there; nothing to see folks; move along!" Of course LSM may occasionally wave Fenelon and Guyon as props; pad teachings with quotes from Augustine & Jerome. But one finds a stubbornly-held antipathy for anything outside their primitivist, massively truncated story. The level of determined and conscious ignorance, of "shutting out" required to hold it all together is amazing. It's really quite a window into psychopathology.

If you are going to allude to these other groups then you best state clearly why you think we should consider them.

I will present why we should not, this is taken from

https://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html

about the Coptic Christians:


Theologically, Coptic Christianity is very similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They profess to be genuine followers of Jesus Christ and a part of His worldwide Church. But, as with Catholicism, they tend to emphasize meritorious works in salvation along with liturgical ritual rather than salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Did God recover salvation by faith alone through them? Clearly, no, so what's your problem?

It's one thing for you to criticize what I wrote for not being cohesive and all inclusive of all Christian groups in history. It's another thing for you to be able to say something intelligent about them that shows why I/we should not have excluded them from the narrative.