Why Aren't Mormons Christian?

[MiserereNobis]

Good, I would hate to believe in what you believe in. Yours is false.

 

Then you should be happily and proudly proclaiming that you are not Christian

[thesometimesaint]

Then you should be happily and proudly proclaiming that you are not Christian

 

With some 50,000 different Christian denominations in the US alone. It probably isn't a good idea to claim anyone of them can't be Christian.

[MiserereNobis]

With some 50,000 different Christian denominations in the US alone. It probably isn't a good idea to claim anyone of them can't be Christian.

 

Oh, I was referring to Mola in particular, since he said he would hate to believe what Christians believe.

 

Personally, I can understand the arguments on both sides: those who say Mormons aren't Christian and those who say they are.

 

The technical definition of Christian in Catholicism is one who has been validly baptized.  Technical definitions aside, I believe Mormons are Christian, but you have to admit that there are differences on almost every detail.  We use the same terms, but the definitions/details behind those terms sometimes are vastly different.  But from my point-of-view, that doesn't mean you can't call yourselves Christian

Edited December 31, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, I was referring to Mola in particular, since he said he would hate to believe what Christians believe.

 

Personally, I can understand the arguments on both sides: those who say Mormons aren't Christian and those who say they are.

 

The technical definition of Christian in Catholicism is one who has been validly baptized.  Technical definitions aside, I believe Mormons are Christian, but you have to admit that there are differences on almost every detail.  We use the same terms, but the definitions/details behind those terms sometimes are vastly different.  But from my point-of-view, that doesn't mean you can't call yourselves Christian

 

I'm pretty generous when I use the term Christian. We have Baptists that don't believe in baptism. Sounds strange to me, but... . If someone wants to be called a Christian I'll leave the judgements of their Christianity up to God.

[Ahab]

I'm pretty generous when I use the term Christian. We have Baptists that don't believe in baptism. Sounds strange to me, but... . If someone wants to be called a Christian I'll leave the judgements of their Christianity up to God.

I'm more concerned when people who I know are Christians are not referred to as Christians than I am for those who are called Christians and I really don't know for sure. I know there are some very weak and ignorant Christians who just aren't the best kind of Christians there are, but when some of the best Christians aren't recognized as Christians I get the feeling that some people just don't know what Christians really are.

Like Joseph Smith and all other true prophets of God. Can't get much more Christian than that!

[Calm]

Oh, I was referring to Mola in particular, since he said he would hate to believe what Christians believe.

I don't think he was referring to Christians in general, but Canadaigua in particular.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I'm more concerned when people who I know are Christians are not referred to as Christians than I am for those who are called Christians and I really don't know for sure. I know there are some very weak and ignorant Christians who just aren't the best kind of Christians there are, but when some of the best Christians aren't recognized as Christians I get the feeling that some people just don't know what Christians really are.

Like Joseph Smith and all other true prophets of God. Can't get much more Christian than that!

 

The hardest thing to do is get a bunch of Mormons to become Latter-day Saints.

[MiserereNobis]

I don't think he was referring to Christians in general, but Canadaigua in particular.

 

Ah, my apologies.  I wasn't following the thread closely enough.

[Calm]

Since LDS would generally argue that many (some might argue all) of our doctrines Evangelicals argue against are found or had been found among Christians, it is illogical to claim that LDS would hate to believe what Christians believe (especially since the vast majority of us see ourselves as Christians, even if a few reject the label...most based on certain actions of certain claiming the label, not generally rejecting being part of Christianity, though a few do because they see the community as hijacked by certain creedal requirements...iow they let others define Christianity and reject being part of it based on that definition).

For the claims that LDS beliefs can be found among those recognized as Christian by the main traditional groups and therefore such beliefs should not be used as exclude LDS, see Peterson's Offenders For A Word. Barry Bickmore has a book that claims to find such roots as well, but is not specific to addressing the argument.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/offenders-for-a-word/

Review of Bickmore's book from a nonLDS:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-look-at-barry-bickmores-book-from-a-non-lds-perspective

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Then you should be happily and proudly proclaiming that you are not Christian

 

No, we should be happily and proudly proclaiming that we are not Trinitarians, but followers of the true Christ.

[Ahab]

No, we should be happily and proudly proclaiming that we are not Trinitarians, but followers of the true Christ.

Or we could be happily proclaiming that we are true Trinitarians and Christians while explaining, on occasions, how their understanding is wrong on so many levels.

[Teancum]

Because you believe in a different god (gods in your case) and a different gospel.

 

 

Nah you believe in a different God.  You don't believe in the OT God, nope none whatsoever.

[Calm]

Or we could be happily proclaiming that we are true Trinitarians and Christians while explaining, on occasions, how their understanding is wrong on so many levels.

Since "Trinitarian" has a specific meaning, that would be wrong.

 

As an American, would you claim Americans to be the "true Russians" based on the belief (assume that you hold it for the sake of the argument) that the American government is the best government around and Russians should be using it?  It would be absurd to do so because Russian means they are from Russia and does not relate solely to government.

 

It makes as much sense to appropriate the label Trinity for what we believe as LDS is the correct understanding of the nature of the Godhead.

 

Clamining we believe in the Trinity when the Trinity is not solely relating to the Godhead, but is a specific belief about the Godhead that we as LDS disagree with is equally absurd.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Since "Trinitarian" has a specific meaning, that would be wrong.

It has several specific meanings and we are technically Trinitarians even if those who don't accept those technicalities don't like it. There is a unity of 3 in the Godhead.

As an American, would you claim Americans to be the "true Russians" based on the belief (assume that you hold it for the sake of the argument) that the American government is the best government around and Russians should be using it? It would be absurd to do so because Russian means they are from Russia and does not relate solely to government.

It makes as much sense to appropriate the label Trinity for what we believe as LDS is the correct understanding of the nature of the Godhead.

Sister you are way off on this one. Think about it some more.

Clamining we believe in the Trinity when the Trinity is not solely relating to the Godhead, but is a specific belief about the Godhead that we as LDS disagree with is equally absurd.

[pogi]

The word Christian does mean something definite, linguistically. Some people just choose to disregard the literal meanings and make up their own definitions.

 

It means whatever you want it to mean.  It is not a creed, doctrine, or revelation with clear, strict boundaries.  It is not an ordinance or title required for salvation.  It is simply a taxonomic tool used to categorize a group of people for ease of communication.  We like to categorize things, so we made up the word, it is as simple as that.  When that group of people has some 50,000 branches and can't agree on who or what "Christ" is (or even what he taught), there are obviously no clear deliniated boundaries as to what "christian" might mean.  It is like trying to find a universally agreed upon definition for the word "species" or "life", good luck!

 

What is the "definite" meaning linguistically according to you?  Do you really think that everybody will agree with that definition?  Why does your definition have more authority than any other definition?  Does one require authority from God to define the word "christian", or is it simply arbitrary?

[Ahab]

It means whatever you want it to mean. It is not a creed, doctrine, or revelation with clear, strict boundaries. It is not an ordinance or title required for salvation. It is simply a taxonomic tool used to categorize a group of people for ease of communication. We like to categorize things, so we made up the word, it is as simple as that. When that group of people has some 50,000 branches and can't agree on who or what "Christ" is (or even what he taught), there are obviously no clear deliniated boundaries as to what "christian" might mean. It is like trying to find a universally agreed upon definition for the word "species" or "life", good luck!

What is the "definite" meaning linguistically according to you? Do you really think that everybody will agree with that definition? Why does your definition have more authority than any other definition? Does one require authority from God to define the word "christian", or is it simply arbitrary?

The suffixes "ian" and "arian", like when applied to the words Christ and Trinity, are literary tools that mean what they mean. Consult a dictionary.

[pogi]

The suffixes "ian" and "arian", like when applied to the words Christ and Trinity, are literary tools that mean what they mean. Consult a dictionary.

 

Should I consult a dictionary for a cohesive definiton for who and what Christ is?  Is not that the important part of the word that gives it context and meaning?

Edited December 31, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

Should I consult a dictionary for a cohesive definiton for who and what Christ is? Is not that the important part of the word that gives it context and meaning?

You could just start with what the word Christian means and then go on to learn about Christ. To be learning about Christ while not understanding what it means to be a Christian is to be one but not realize what you are.

[pogi]

You could just start with what the word Christian means and then go on to learn about Christ. To be learning about Christ while not understanding what it means to be a Christian is to be one but not realize what you are.

 

So according to you, it's important for me to consult a dictionary to know what the suffix "ian" means before I can understand the word "Christian", but it's not important to know what the word "Christ" means to give it context? 

 

What is the universally accepted and authoritative definition for the word "Christian"?  Trick question - there isn't one.  What makes your definition better or more authoritative than anyone else's then?

[Calm]

Think about it some more.

No, don't need to.

Trinitarian on its own without a qualifier means different things than we mean when we say "Godhead".

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

So according to you, it's important for me to consult a dictionary to know what the suffix "ian" means before I can understand the word "Christian", but it's not important to know what the word "Christ" means to give it context?

What is the universally accepted and authoritative definition for the word "Christian"? Trick question - there isn't one. What makes your definition better or more authoritative than anyone else's then?

There actually is an accurate definition of Christian, or at least one, and it's the "ian" that defines what it is. To belong to or to be associated with Christ. The other part of the word Christian simply says who Christians belong to or are associated with.

[Ahab]

No, don't need to.

Trinitarian on its own without a qualifier means different things than we mean when we say "Godhead".

Yeah I know that and wasn't refuting that.

I suggest breaking the word down to its parts to understand what each part means separately and then combining the parts together.

Trinity = 3 in unity

arian = http://i.word.com/idictionary/-arian

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah I know that and wasn't refuting that.

I suggest breaking the word down to its parts to understand what each part means separately and then combining the parts together.

Trinity = 3 in unity

arian = http://i.word.com/idictionary/-arian

 

The parts of the words don't always dictate the definition.  Trinitarian means something quite specific in theology, and it is silly to try to say that Mormons are Trinitarians.

 

Here's a good example.  Ever been to a CES (church education system) symposium?  Or heard of one?  What do you think they do at a symposium?  It's a conference, right?  Yes, symposium has come to mean conference, but if we break it down into its parts we get:

 

sym = together (symphony, sympathy, etc)

po = to drink (potable water, etc)

ium = location (stadium, gymnasium, etc)

 

A symposium, based on its parts, means a drinking party (which is exactly what it meant in ancient Greece).  But the word's definition has changed, so using the parts doesn't work for the definition.

 

Hysteria is another example, since it comes from the Greek word hystera which means uterus (which is where we get hysterectomy).  If you use only the parts of the word, hysteria is a malady caused by the uterus.  Of course, that's not what we mean when we use it today.

 

So, this is my long-winded way of saying that Mormons are not Trinitarians and trying to use the parts of a word to determine its definition can have serious flaws.

[pogi]

There actually is an accurate definition of Christian, or at least one, and it's the "ian" that defines what it is.

 

Since when does the suffix, instead of the root, define the meaning?

 

I suggest breaking the word down to its parts to understand what each part means separately and then combining the parts together.

Trinity = 3 in unity

arian = http://i.word.com/idictionary/-arian

 

Interesting how you find it necessary to define ALL parts of the word "trinitarian" to understand its proper meaning, but when it comes to the word "Christian", we only need to define the suffix and neglect the meaning of the root for a proper understanding.

 

When you understand the role of pragmatics, semantics, and conceptual meaning in linguistics, you will understand why people will look at you funny for saying that Mormons are trinitarians.  I am not arguing that it can't mean what it means for you, but it won't mean the same thing for everybody else.  The same is true for the word "Christian".  Nobody is wrong!

Edited December 31, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

The parts of the words don't always dictate the definition. Trinitarian means something quite specific in theology, and it is silly to try to say that Mormons are Trinitarians.

Here's a good example. Ever been to a CES (church education system) symposium? Or heard of one? What do you think they do at a symposium? It's a conference, right? Yes, symposium has come to mean conference, but if we break it down into its parts we get:

sym = together (symphony, sympathy, etc)

po = to drink (potable water, etc)

ium = location (stadium, gymnasium, etc)

A symposium, based on its parts, means a drinking party (which is exactly what it meant in ancient Greece). But the word's definition has changed, so using the parts doesn't work for the definition.

Hysteria is another example, since it comes from the Greek word hystera which means uterus (which is where we get hysterectomy). If you use only the parts of the word, hysteria is a malady caused by the uterus. Of course, that's not what we mean when we use it today.

So, this is my long-winded way of saying that Mormons are not Trinitarians and trying to use the parts of a word to determine its definition can have serious flaws.

Additional meanings for words or their parts do not negate previous meanings. Words are kinda special that way.

Protest all you want. I agree that 3 who are God are in unity, and therefore technically I am Trinitarian.

If you mean something else when you say you are Trinitarian, that's not my problem.