170 replies to this topic

[wenglund]

As I see it, the more compelling question ought be: "Is the 'Church of What's Wrong With the Mormons' (i.e. the church for critics like Jaybear), a Christian church?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

No, I think you are the one that is confused.

Effective:
Q: What is the most effective way to communicate your religious beliefs:
A: Wade is a Christian.
B:  Wade is a Mormon.

Given that a significant portion of the population do not consider Mormons to be Christians,  calling yourself a Christian is an wholly ineffective way to communicate your religion.  

Reasonable.  Please explain why you think its reasonable to demand an EV or Catholic to use term "Christian" in a manner inconsistent with their deeply held religious conviction.

Polite/PC.  Yes.  Mormons are offended if you say publicly that they are not Christian.  If you are engaging in interfaith dialogue, its would be considered rude to say that Mormons are not Christians, even if you don't really believe that Mormons are Christians.

Here you are now confusing "effective" with "convoluted." Nicely done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

That is an appeal to Ad Populum. If you want to effectively and accurately communicate then the LDS are a sect within Christianity

Lets stick with the dictionary. If I say the color "green". Regardless of my deeply held religious beliefs it is entirely possible for both of us to imagine a different shade of green, but both are still green.

It is not only rude it is inaccurate to claim the LDS are not Christians regardless of individual belief.

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 18 April 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Here you are now confusing "effective" with "convoluted." Nicely done.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are the one, not me,  that chose the to use the word effective.   So, I will ask you again:

Q: What is the most effective way to communicate your religious beliefs:
A: Wade is a Christian.
B: Wade is a Mormon.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Which is most effective way to communicate where I live:

A. I live in North America.

B. I live in southern California

[wenglund]

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

You are the one, not me,  that chose the to use the word effective.   So, I will ask you again:

Q: What is the most effective way to communicate your religious beliefs:
A: Wade is a Christian.
B: Wade is a Mormon.

You are the one who introduced the words "most" and "way to communicate your religious beliefs," and mistakenly assumed that is what I had in mind (i.e. I have been Jaybeared).

Now, if you wish to ask me a question about how I used the term "effective," I will be happy to answer you. But, I am not about to let you put words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 18 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Now, if you wish to ask me a question about how I used the term "effective," I will be happy to answer you. But, I am not about to let you put words into my mouth.

Interesting.  I asked you for your personal  opinion on what you consider the most effective way to communicate your religious belief to a third party, and you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.


We must be living on different planets.

[Pahoran]

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Like I said, I know nothing about catholic missionaries,

Yet it was you who introduced them into the discussion...

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

and never pretended to know what they say and do, or even whether they wear nametags. So please keep me out that game.

My point was simply that all one needs to know:

Catholics don't recognize Mormon baptisms.
EVs don't recognize Mormon baptisms.
Mormons don't recognize Catholic or EV baptisms.

An EV or Catholic who says that Mormons are Christian is simply being PC by using a broader definition of the word than their doctrine recognizes.

Clearly you assume that "Christian" means something equivalent to "validly baptised."  Are you able to support that assumption from any actual sources?

Because, just so you know, "Christian" actually means "a follower of Jesus Christ."

Just so you know, I don't think you'll find any self-described EV Protestants who decide whether someone is "Christian" based upon who (if anyone) baptised them.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Pahoran, on 18 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Yet it was you who introduced them into the discussion...

No. It was Why Me who did so in post no. 116.

Quote

Clearly you assume that "Christian" means something equivalent to "validly baptised."
Are you able to support that assumption from any actual sources?

No.  I define and use the term "Christian" to mean broadly anyone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ.

Quote

Because, just so you know, "Christian" actually means "a follower of Jesus Christ."

Thanks, but I am pretty sure that the term "Christian" means different things to different people.
But even with your chosen definition, EVs and Catholics tell me that the "Jesus Christ" that Mormons profess to follow, is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Quote

Just so you know, I don't think you'll find any self-described EV Protestants who decide whether someone is "Christian" based upon who (if anyone) baptised them.

I didn't say they did.  I simply said they don't consider Mormon baptisms to be valid. If you understand why, you will understand why they don't consider Mormons to be Christians.  

My point is that since you don't consider their baptisms to be valid, nor do you consider them to be members of Christ's Church, seems hypocritical to whine that they don't consider Mormons to be part of their club.

[calmoriah]

Jaybear,

So we can discount the usage of "Christian" by any Protestant or other denomination or individual that chooses to call Catholic "non-Christian" or a "pagan" faith?

edit:  for some reason it came up quoting blue's post, rather than jb's

Edited by calmoriah, 18 April 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[3DOP]

The Catholic faith proposes that baptism is our intitation into the Church and I can understand in what respect a Catholic priest or even a publication needs to be guarded about saying that Mormons are Christian, in light of the fact that our church rejects LDS baptisms. But this article goes much further than being guarded about who is baptized. It claims that "their religion has nothing to do with Christianity". It says that Mormonism "...is not even a Christian heresy."

Most Catholics and Protestants note the differences between themselves and Mormons and see areas of great divergence, especially about the nature of God and human nature. We tell ourselves that Mormons cannot be Christian because they do not resemble us at the most primary stages. But this begs the question. It assumes what Mormons do not concede. IF my faith is apostate, why should I expect that we got the primary stages correct? Mormonism is plausible precisely BECAUSE it is consistent with what I would expect to see if traditional Christianity were false. Why would any non-Catholic (especially congregationalist and community church Protestants, as most Evangelicals tend to be) expect a bunch of bishops in a meeting to be able to define and maintain the difficult doctrines of God perfectly? I see the LDS Restoration, properly understood, together with the Roman Catholic Church, properly understood, as a demand to choose either continuity or restoration. In my view, the Protestant middle ground is untenable. That is why it is important to me to be able to in a truly significant sense define LDS as Christian.

I think the claims of the article are untenable. Mormonism springs from Christianity historically. It uses all of the 66 books of the Protesant canon. Joseph Smith wasn't praying about Scriptures from Hinduism or Islam when he was reportedly visited by God. For those obvious reasons and many more, Mormons have to be considered Christian. Perhaps a good qualifier would be Restoration Christian. There is no way that Catholics are being accurate with their own history by denying the roots of the movement founded by Joseph Smith. To say of Mormons that "their religion has nothing to do with Christianity" is pretty close to saying the Chevrolet Chevette had nothing to do with General Motors. General Motors might wish it to be the case, but that doesn't make it so.

This isn't about political correctness. It is about historical accuracy and lucid dialogue. Once Catholics have explained that there does exist in Catholicism a rigorous doctrinal sense in which only the baptized are Christians, we can proceed to acknowledge how Mormonism became a major Christian religion without resorting to giving offense for no good reason.

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 18 April 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[calmoriah]

blueadept, on 18 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

I have to agree with Jaybear on this point. In talking to other non-LDS about the Mormon faith, they seem to always bring up the point of you all being non-Christian which is a dialogue killer. I choose to use the broad definition of Christian in participating here. I understand both POV so let's move on. Calling my wife's faith non-Christian is a killer in too many ways to count.

So do you see your choice as being "PC" or "effective" for conversation?

[calmoriah]

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Polite/PC.  

Since when did the definition of "polite" become equivalent to "politically correct".   I know many who are polite with no consideration whatsoever for politics.  In fact, the vast majorities of polite conversations I have been involved in have been totally nonpolitical and a significant part of political conversations have not been polite even while involving many "politically correct" statements.

Edited by calmoriah, 18 April 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[mfbukowski]

3DOP, on 18 April 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

The article goes much further than saying "Mormons are not Christian". It claims that "their religion has nothing to do with Christianity". It says that "It is not even a Christian heresy."

NOW I am seriously insulted.  

Clearly we ARE heretics, since many aspects of our doctrine were part of the ancient church and condemned has heretical.

[calmoriah]

Quote

Effective:
Q: What is the most effective way to communicate your religious beliefs:
A: Wade is a Christian.
B: Wade is a Mormon.

That would depend on what the question is.  If the question is, for example, are Mormons Christian or not, answering "Mormons are Mormon" doesn't really convey any info.

[calmoriah]

3DOP, on 18 April 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

This isn't about political correctness. It is about historical accuracy and lucid dialogue. Once Catholics have explained that there does exist in Catholicism a rigorous doctrinal sense in which only the baptized are Christians, we can proceed to acknowledge how Mormonism became a major Christian religion without resorting to giving offense for no good reason. 3DOP

Don't be so reasonable.

[blueadept]

calmoriah, on 18 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

So do you see your choice as being "PC" or "effective" for conversation?

I respect the viewpoint of the LDS members as well as respect the viewpoint of the leaders of my church and I'm not hung up on this issue.  I've met many who don't consider Catholics as Christian either and I just internally laugh at the situation.  As St Francis would say, "Preach My Gospel Always!  When Necessary, Use Words."

I choose not to get hung up on a definition and prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.

My 2 cents

[calmoriah]

blueadept, on 18 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I respect the viewpoint of the LDS members as well as respect the viewpoint of the leaders of my church and I'm not hung up on this issue.  I've met many who don't consider Catholics as Christian either and I just internally laugh at the situation.  As St Francis would say, "Preach My Gospel Always!  When Necessary, Use Words."

I choose not to get hung up on a definition and prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.

My 2 cents

Which to me means your choices are based on effectiveness without concern for "political correctness".

The whole "Catholics are pagan" drama is so very, very ridiculous, in my view.

[Jaybear]

calmoriah, on 18 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

So do you see your choice as being "PC" or "effective" for conversation?

The words are not mutually exclusive.   If someone is angry, its hard to "effectively" communicate, as has been my experience here.

[calmoriah]

Jaybear, on 18 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

The words are not mutually exclusive.  

Whether or not they are mutually exclusive says nothing about which is a better description for what blue does.  Considering how he takes into serious consideration his religious leaders' positions, it seems to me that political correctness is not a high priority for him and that if his statements are politically correct, it is more of a coincidence than an intended result.

Quote

If someone is angry, its hard to "effectively" communicate, as has been my experience here.

What does anger have to do with political correctness or lack of it?
=====

In my experience many who are being politically correct are not very respectful of others' beliefs, they are not only uneducated in others' beliefs, but they have no intention of taking the time to study them before making judgments about such beliefs.

Edited by calmoriah, 18 April 2012 - 07:14 PM.