Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

“Is a Christian a Christian;” instead of “Is a Mormon a Christian?”


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Explain please.

Sure.

Nearly everyone agrees that leadership is capable of making mistakes, but seeing leadership  acknowledge they have made a mistake is almost unheard of. Additionally, publicly pointing out that you think leadership has made mistakes can get you excommunicated. If we openly acknowledge fallibility we should also be able to openly discuss when that has happened or is happening. While we preach fallibility we practice infallibility. I think this is especially applicable when it comes to the living prophet and Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

seems the EV's believe that Jesus Christ and God are one person.

One being, I believe, not one person but three.  My understanding is the infiniteness of perfection that is God allows for something that does not exist in mortal beings such that the substitution that can take place for mortal beings/persons isn't accurate, but it is not hard to come up with an analogy for Saints to wrap their head around that a family could be described in some contexts as a being and three persons could make up that family.

That is not that close to what is meant again by EVs in my understanding...just an approximation, I believe we currently at least one EV on the board who can correct me if I have misstated or present the analogy as to close to the belief when it is not.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity.html

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Sure.

Nearly everyone agrees that leadership is capable of making mistakes, but seeing leadership  acknowledge they have made a mistake is almost unheard of. Additionally, publicly pointing out that you think leadership has made mistakes can get you excommunicated. If we openly acknowledge fallibility we should also be able to openly discuss when that has happened or is happening. While we preach fallibility we practice infallibility. I think this is especially applicable when it comes to the living prophet and Joseph Smith.

I agree to a certain extent in that we don't feel comfortable talking about fallibility.  I think we focus too much on people doing the wrong things when fallible, when all it needs to be is leaders struggle to be effective just as the rest of us.  If fallibility was measured as being more or less effective, it might be easier to discuss.  

My problem with discussing fallibility is one generally needs to know a lot more than we can to pinpoint what the fallibility actually is.  In my view there is always fallibility in communication and action, we are human, how can there  it be?  So it is more asking if the error significant or not, how much did it impede effectiveness.  Intentional error (criminality for example) is easy to identify, but errors of relatively intelligent people when we believe in agency?  Not so easy to define, imo.  A leader might not commit major errors when making a decision, but the circumstances he does not control may change and that decision then becomes very ineffective.  How would that be judged?  By the effectiveness of the original plan or the ultimate result?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Amulek said:

After all, Puerto Rico and Samoa are both U.S. Territories, which means they are Americans. 

But, while that is certainly true, I think it's fair to say that that's not what most people think of when you say "American."

 

 

Maybe it is because of where I live, but when I hear American, I think of everyone who lives in North, Central, and South America. We are all Americans. The United States has no right to the exclusive use of the term American. I would say the same thing about either LDS or non-LDS Christians having the exclusive right to use the word Christian. it doesn't exist. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Of course we are. This is why I have stressed being called LDS Christian. I do not wish the Church to be known as the Mormon Church. This will be a transition period for the Church, but it needs to happen. The saints went through a period where it did distance itself from other Christian sects by calling them Gentiles. The Church considers itself to be grafted in with the tribes of Israel. Maybe this was OK for awhile, but I don't see any such distinctions as being useful anymore.

 

Again which is why I prefer the label of LDS Christian, since other Christians are still married to their labels. This allows them to categorize me while still placing me in the Christian camp. I am totally OK with this. There were the early Christians and there are the latter day Christians of Daniel. Makes perfect sense to me. What you are saying is that they still have trouble putting us in their Christian camp... they "have a need to keep a healthy distance..." Yep. They aren't so unprejudiced as you would like to think. I know. I have tried to post as Christian on websites, and most won't let me. It seems they have trouble digesting what the scriptures really say. Their loss. I am only trying to offer things they have not considered, but that is another conversation. Suffice it to say that I believe for the reasons you have given that LDS Christian is the most appropriate way to go. Let me know if you think of something better. :) 
 

But to be straightforward, as a LDS Christian I do have a different concept about the Godhead then trinitarians. Would it help you if that was in the title of the Book? In the LDS way of thinking, traditionally the label of Christian gets married with the label of Trinitarian, so we use Christian instead when really we mean Trinitarian. That doesn't make for a very nice book title I guess. We just don't speak of Trinitarians. It is off-putting, but that is the real distinction I think your are not quite putting your finger on. The Church of Jesus Christ is a non-trinitarian Christian Church. There aren't a lot of them, and many trinitarian Christians are not willing to call us Christian for that reason - they associate Christianity with trinitarian theology and creeds, and use these things to exclude us from "Christianity." I have no issue being excluded from "orthodoxy" - that term is associated with a lot of concepts I do not find compelling - nor true. It's a term which arose with the state Church of Rome, and I feel does not apply to early Christianity, which I believe the Lord sought to restore in this Church. Their distinction really doesn't matter too much to me. Trinitarianism  will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history, and true Christianity will be revealed again like the brightness of the morning star. 

Of course you are correct and I recognize that. There are many Christians, especially in the fundamentalist and Catholic camps who believe that one cannot be a Christian without being trinitarian. And of course, other folks put other varying restrictions on eternal life, LDS Christians for example. As you all know by now, I don't agree with those restrictions, whether they come from the LDS Christian, or the non-LDS Christian side. Many fundamentalist Christians believe you cannot have eternal life without being trinitarian. Many, perhaps 57% if recent polls are accurate of LDS-Christians believe you cannot have eternal life (in the presence of the Father and Son) without going through a series of LDS-administered ordinances. I disagree with both; yet still consider both Christians, while considering both wrong. It is a huge uphill climb for both parties, but I think you all know that I hope that some day, some way, some how both sides will let go of everything that says "you gotta do or believe this" to practice the presence of God for eternity, that doesn't involve the atonement of Christ. You all probably remember when I posted about essential and non-essential beliefs. That didn't go well because both LDS and Non-LDS Christians on this forum assured me that all of their beliefs were "essential." Oh well. I guess I am just a minimalist when it comes to essentials!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

One being, I believe, not one person but three.  My understanding is the infiniteness of perfection that is God allows for something that does not exist in mortal beings such that the substitution that can take place for mortal beings/persons isn't accurate, but it is not hard to come up with an analogy for Saints to wrap their head around that a family could be described in some contexts as a being and three persons could make up that family.

That is not that close to what is meant again by EVs in my understanding...just an approximation, I believe we currently at least one EV on the board who can correct me if I have misstated or present the analogy as to close to the belief when it is not.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity.html

What is an EV? An evangelical? An Evangelical? I only use Evangelical in the formal sense to refer to a group of Christians who started in the 1940's as a reaction against both fundamentalists and mainstream Christians. One can be an Evangelical in any denominational or Christian branch setting. It certainly seems to me that Stephen Robinson was quite Evangelical in his writings. I have said this before and hope it helps - I am a Christian, then an Evangelical, and lastly and of least importance a Mennonite. I always think of My LDS Christian friends as Christians and then as Mormons. I think there is place to add in the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainstream labels to Mormonism, but that would just confuse things and serve no purpose. Fundamentalist Mormons are thought of as those who still practice plural marriage in this dispensation, etc. That has nothing to do with the term in the non-LDS Christian usage. Maybe we are like the US citizens and the Brits - a people divided by a common language!

Link to comment

The question, Are Christians of other denominations "Christian" doesn't need parsing, or lengthy explanation about what a "True or Authentic Christian" might be. The answer is YES. Christians, whether LDS or any other denomination that professes to be Christian, IS Christian. It's a simple question and deserves a simple answer.

I'm glad the majority of people here are surprised, or even appalled, that members of the ward wouldn't commit to calling a Christian of another denomination, a "Christian". But I have seen some hemming and hawing here as well.

Sadly, we have had many discussions on this board about something similar which yielded much different responses, so I understand the confusion in the OP. Instead of asking if other denominations are Christian, try asking if other denominations are part of the body of Christ. I've been shocked in the past by some on the board who will not / cannot accept other Non-LDS denominations as even a part of the body of Christ. IMO, if someone (or a denomination) isn't considered part of the body, they wouldn't be considered Christian either. But I suppose it sounds harsher to say they aren't Christian so there is more hesitancy to take that position.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The question, Are Christians of other denominations "Christian" doesn't need parsing, or lengthy explanation about what a "True or Authentic Christian" might be. The answer is YES. Christians, whether LDS or any other denomination that professes to be Christian, IS Christian. It's a simple question and deserves a simple answer.

I'm glad the majority of people here are surprised, or even appalled, that members of the ward wouldn't commit to calling a Christian of another denomination, a "Christian". But I have seen some hemming and hawing here as well.

Sadly, we have had many discussions on this board about something similar which yielded much different responses, so I understand the confusion in the OP. Instead of asking if other denominations are Christian, try asking if other denominations are part of the body of Christ. I've been shocked in the past by some on the board who will not / cannot accept other Non-LDS denominations as even a part of the body of Christ. IMO, if someone (or a denomination) isn't considered part of the body, they wouldn't be considered Christian either. But I suppose it sounds harsher to say they aren't Christian so there is more hesitancy to take that position.

 

What does it mean to be a part of the body of Christ?  Where can I find the definition of that term?

For the bolded part, I use the dictionary to define what a Christian is, and see it as anyone who professes to believe in Christ.  There is no checking out someone's morality or how they feel about the trinity or whether or not they are actually a gang member running drugs, etc.  It's a simple dictionary definition and applies to everyone who falls into that dictionary definition.

But it's harder for me to even try to define who is or isn't a part of the body of Christ because I'm not sure what definition of 'the body of Christ' you are using.  That one doesn't have a dictionary definition so it's automatically more complicated. 

Would a gang member who is running drugs across the border, but does believe in Christ, be a member of the body of Christ?  I would probably say 'no' even though I would consider them to be Christian.  Just like I would say that a member of the church who believed in Christ but was actively committing adultery and leading a ponzi scheme is a Christian but not a member of the body of Christ.   How would you categorize a person like that?  Christian?  Body of Christ?

For me it doesn't have anything to do with hesitating to be harsh.  

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Maybe it is because of where I live, but when I hear American, I think of everyone who lives in North, Central, and South America. We are all Americans. The United States has no right to the exclusive use of the term American. I would say the same thing about either LDS or non-LDS Christians having the exclusive right to use the word Christian. it doesn't exist. 

Do the people where you live refer to themselves as Americans or Mexicans?

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Maybe it is because of where I live, but when I hear American, I think of everyone who lives in North, Central, and South America. We are all Americans. The United States has no right to the exclusive use of the term American. I would say the same thing about either LDS or non-LDS Christians having the exclusive right to use the word Christian. it doesn't exist. 

Maybe it was a particular teacher I had, but I grew up thinking American should be applied to all who live in the American hemisphere and it still strikes me as weird it gets applied to only one country.  Russians and Canadians in my experience (without me suggesting it) called us American as well so it isn't necessarily our choice that drives it.

Yankee doesn't really work.  There is nothing else currently easily recognizable besides US citizen, which has political implications and ignores those who are not citizens and claim the states as home.

Might be the Brits' fault we ended up here, if I understand wiki right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

United States isn't exclusive either since it is Estados Unidos Mexicanos....though I understand some want to change it officially to Mexico.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Maybe it is because of where I live, but when I hear American, I think of everyone who lives in North, Central, and South America. We are all Americans. The United States has no right to the exclusive use of the term American.

That's neither here nor there. I wasn't talking about exclusive use of a term, I was talking about how words are commonly used and/or understood.

If you were to turn on the news and, in passing, hear someone with a European accent say, "I can't stand Americans." Would you honestly be confused about who he was referring to?

I genuinely have a hard time believing you would sit there and think to yourself, 'Man, that guy sounds pretty bitter - I wonder who on earth he could possibly be talking about? Brazilians? Canadians? I mean, there's just so many Americans there's really no way to know. How confusing.' 

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe it was a particular teacher I had, but I grew up thinking American should be applied to all who live in the American hemisphere and it still strikes me as weird it gets applied to only one country.  Russians and Canadians in my experience (without me suggesting it) called us American as well so it isn't necessarily our choice that drives it.

Yankee doesn't really work.  There is nothing else currently easily recognizable besides US citizen, which has political implications and ignores those who are not citizens and claim the states as home.

Might be the Brits' fault we ended up here, if I understand wiki right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

United States isn't exclusive either since it is Estados Unidos Mexicanos....though I understand some want to change it officially to Mexico.

Maybe it only get's applied to one country because only one country actually has the term "of America" as a part of its official name?

Link to comment
On 4/15/2019 at 12:00 PM, Navidad said:

I am pretty much done trying to understand the terms “salvation,” “saved,” “exaltation,” and “exalted” from an LDS perspective. It is too hard. So far, I have found at least six or seven different usages and meaning for the word “salvation” in LDS theology. Some co-mingle with exaltation, some do not. With no offense intended, it seems to me that many Saints don’t understand the different usages of the term salvation in LDS doctrine. If that is true, how can I possibly hope to put it all together? I can’t.

I don’t know what the many Saints with whom you have discussed this understand, but these three scriptures are sufficiently clear for my understanding.......

2 Nephi 31

D&C 76

D&C 131:1-4

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do the people where you live refer to themselves as Americans or Mexicans?

They refer to themselves as Mexican until someone says something that implies, in their thinking that they are not American, or that only US citizens are Americans. They react very negatively to that. Many years ago I was taught in my historical research classes never to use the term American in a way that seems to imply it is specifically intended for U.S. citizens. That is very offensive and inaccurate. 

Link to comment

It is interesting and may come as a surprise to some that one of the fastest growing Christian groups is Oneness Pentecostalism. They are not trinitarian. Many Christian groups are not quite sure how to characterize Pentecostals. As their numbers grow incrementally, they are coming out of the shadows and their scholarship is gaining in influence and respect. It is a very interesting development with implications for several groups, LDS Christians, and others. It is my anecdotal experience from a lot of travel and engagement in the borderlands area that both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many other Christian groups are losing members to Oneness Pentecostalism, especially among the Latino population. 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course you are correct and I recognize that. There are many Christians, especially in the fundamentalist and Catholic camps who believe that one cannot be a Christian without being trinitarian. And of course, other folks put other varying restrictions on eternal life, LDS Christians for example. As you all know by now, I don't agree with those restrictions, whether they come from the LDS Christian, or the non-LDS Christian side. Many fundamentalist Christians believe you cannot have eternal life without being trinitarian. Many, perhaps 57% if recent polls are accurate of LDS-Christians believe you cannot have eternal life (in the presence of the Father and Son) without going through a series of LDS-administered ordinances. I disagree with both; yet still consider both Christians, while considering both wrong. It is a huge uphill climb for both parties, but I think you all know that I hope that some day, some way, some how both sides will let go of everything that says "you gotta do or believe this" to practice the presence of God for eternity, that doesn't involve the atonement of Christ. You all probably remember when I posted about essential and non-essential beliefs. That didn't go well because both LDS and Non-LDS Christians on this forum assured me that all of their beliefs were "essential." Oh well. I guess I am just a minimalist when it comes to essentials!

Well, there simply are essentials. To be saved, one must repent, and accept Yeshua. There are differences in opinion about this. I've had one on this board try to tell me that Christ will save simply through His grace. I disagree. In the end everyone who is saved will repent as a condition of their salvation. Yeshua Himself said the road which leads to life is narrow, and few there be who find it. That sounds like they must meet certain conditions to me. It does not sound like everyone finds it. Are covenants you speak of are not all that involved. One must not commit common sexual sins. Do you remember the couple in the early church who represented they had given all they had, but had held back? That skirts another covenant. Nothing the early Christian wouldn't be asked or expected to follow. If they were expected to follow them, that should be good enough for the modern Saint. I understand painting us outside the standard modern evangelical view, but we don't really do anything that unusual - unless you think the early Christian Church was doing something wrong.... perhaps you disagree with them as well....? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t know what the many Saints with whom you have discussed this understand, but these three scriptures are sufficiently clear for my understanding.......

2 Nephi 31

D&C 76

D&C 131:1-4

 

I would refer you to the article on Salvation on LDS.org .......   https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng       It refers to six disparate uses of the word salvation in LDS terminology.  This is very confusing for the non-LDS Christian. It makes discussion without operational definitions of terms almost impossible. I am sure the three scriptures you mention are "sufficiently clear" for your understanding as a longtime member of the Church. They certainly aren't clear to someone like me. Especially 2 Nephi 31:21. Talk about a clear statement of the Trinity (as I understand it) in one verse! The whole chapter is based on baptismal regeneration, a completely foreign concept to me. Just as my peculiarly Mennonite beliefs are "sufficiently clear" to me, they aren't to the majority of the rest of Christianity. I found the Salvation article very helpful and very confusing at the same time. It taught me that I cannot have a cogent discussion with a Saint about Salvation until we clarify what it is we are each individually talking about. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It is interesting and may come as a surprise to some that one of the fastest growing Christian groups is Oneness Pentecostalism. They are not trinitarian. Many Christian groups are not quite sure how to characterize Pentecostals. As their numbers grow incrementally, they are coming out of the shadows and their scholarship is gaining in influence and respect. It is a very interesting development with implications for several groups, LDS Christians, and others. It is my anecdotal experience from a lot of travel and engagement in the borderlands area that both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many other Christian groups are losing members to Oneness Pentecostalism, especially among the Latino population. 

Interesting. I've never heard of Oneness Pentecostalism.

There are many theories about what is driving the increase in "nones" but I think that for many people they are just bored with the old ways of understanding, explaining, and accepting. Youngins today don't care so much about how their grandparents explained theology or the supernatural and don't find that it fits with their modern lives. So they become dissatisfied with the old, status quo which some churches, like the LDS (IMO). If they are going to be interested in religion it needs to speak to them. There needs to be some fresh application, scholarship, theological rigor instead of relying on past generations. I wonder if that could, at least in part, explain why people are responding to the new scholarship of Oneness Pentecostalism. I'll have to look it up.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, there simply are essentials. To be saved, one must repent, and accept Yeshua. There are differences in opinion about this. I've had one on this board try to tell me that Christ will save simply through His grace. I disagree. In the end everyone who is saved will repent as a condition of their salvation. Yeshua Himself said the road which leads to life is narrow, and few there be who find it. That sounds like they must meet certain conditions to me. It does not sound like everyone finds it. Are covenants you speak of are not all that involved. One must not commit common sexual sins. Do you remember the couple in the early church who represented they had given all they had, but had held back? That skirts another covenant. Nothing the early Christian wouldn't be asked or expected to follow. If they were expected to follow them, that should be good enough for the modern Saint. I understand painting us outside the standard modern evangelical view, but we don't really do anything that unusual - unless you think the early Christian Church was doing something wrong.... perhaps you disagree with them as well....? 

Hi my friend. In your reply, I see different uses and meaning of the derivative words "saved," "save," and "salvation." So to know we are talking about the same thing we need context. Being saved to me is an aorist concept (it happens at a point in time). For Saints, being saved is a present tense concept - something that begins at a point and continues over time. Is that not correct? For the Saint, it seems to me (I am not telling you what you believe) that salvation and exaltation are part of the same process. From me, salvation and sanctification are two different processes. I think that sanctification is the closest thing I understand to the LDS concept of exaltation. The difference is that sanctification is me become more "like" God; for you it is becoming "as" God. I am not sure that difference is an essential. Now, personally, I am trapped a bit in my Mennonite (Arminian - one can lose his or her salvation) perspective and my Baptist (Once saved - always saved because we are saved by Christ's grip on us, not ours on Him) perspectives. I am trending toward my Arminian side right now, which I believe is more similar to the concept of salvation of the Saints.  

My baptismal covenants are much more oriented toward sanctification than salvation because I would never have been baptized had I not demonstrated that I was "already" saved. I know that is different than the LDS thinking. Is it essential? Probably to the Saint, not to me. So it is complicated. It is further complicated by the similarities and differences in terms. The everlasting life of John 3:16 is not the same thing as the eternal life of II Nephi 31:20. Very few people in either the LDS Christian community or the non-LDS Christian community try to understand the differences and similarities in our verbiage. This is because we all think we already know and understand the other. Our shared culture, history, and personal experiences are most often sufficient and all we really want to know. I think that is a shame and a tragedy. That is why I attend a ward and hang around here for a year and a half. I want to know correctly and understand more fully. It isn't easy. Trust isn't very high on either side. I think a real challenge to trust is the commonality that each side believes that any engagement with the other is most likely for the purpose of conversion or misrepresentation. That is a real hurdle; I am not sure how to overcome it. It is ingrained in the psyche and therefore in the doctrine of both (in a reductionist thinking) groups.  

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. I've never heard of Oneness Pentecostalism.

There are many theories about what is driving the increase in "nones" but I think that for many people they are just bored with the old ways of understanding, explaining, and accepting. Youngins today don't care so much about how their grandparents explained theology or the supernatural and don't find that it fits with their modern lives. So they become dissatisfied with the old, status quo which some churches, like the LDS (IMO). If they are going to be interested in religion it needs to speak to them. There needs to be some fresh application, scholarship, theological rigor instead of relying on past generations. I wonder if that could, at least in part, explain why people are responding to the new scholarship of Oneness Pentecostalism. I'll have to look it up.

There are those, especially in the borderlands who claim more than 20,000,000 adherents to the Oneness movement. That makes it bigger than either the Southern Baptist or LDS Church. It is an ubiquitous movement here in Mexico. It seems to me the LDS missionaries are woefully unprepared for encounters with these folks. I often wonder why the study of comparative religions, especially those that might be faced in a certain mission field is not more a part of missionary training in the Church. Talking with missionaries here, there just seems to be a tacit assumption that their faith is the best (or the only) so therefore folks should just naturally recognize that with a recitation of the message and join up. That just isn't happening, at least not very much in our part of the world. There is little interest in understanding the faith of those to whom they are ministering whether they be Catholic, Mennonite, or Pentecostal - the big three "other" faiths in our area. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There are those, especially in the borderlands who claim more than 20,000,000 adherents to the Oneness movement. That makes it bigger than either the Southern Baptist or LDS Church. It is an ubiquitous movement here in Mexico. It seems to me the LDS missionaries are woefully unprepared for encounters with these folks. I often wonder why the study of comparative religions, especially those that might be faced in a certain mission field is not more a part of missionary training in the Church. Talking with missionaries here, there just seems to be a tacit assumption that their faith is the best (or the only) so therefore folks should just naturally recognize that with a recitation of the message and join up. That just isn't happening, at least not very much in our part of the world. There is little interest in understanding the faith of those to whom they are ministering whether they be Catholic, Mennonite, or Pentecostal - the big three "other" faiths in our area. 

Yeah, in my experience missionaries have always assumed they are right and people will be drawn to their truth and there certainly isn't any formalized comparative religion training for missionaries.

I always enjoy reading your posts. I would have never expected Mexico to have a large Mennonite population.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, in my experience missionaries have always assumed they are right and people will be drawn to their truth and there certainly isn't any formalized comparative religion training for missionaries.

I always enjoy reading your posts. I would have never expected Mexico to have a large Mennonite population.

Thanks so much. The whole world today of comparative religions is fascinating. Let me give you two examples from our current discussion; both involve Ethiopia, a bastion of ancient Coptic (Orthodox)  Christianity. The Mennonite Church in Ethiopia is the fast growing Mennonite group (by country) in the world. The largest Mennonite church in the world is in Ethiopia. Who would have thought either of those were true with our simplistic stereotypes of Anglo Mennonites speaking low German and making wonderful scrapple (yum!). Next, a recent Prime Minister of Ethiopia was a convert to Oneness Pentecostalism and made it possible for an unusual openness to this Pentecostal group. Here in Mexico Pentecostalism has positioned itself as the most native or indigenous church of Protestantism. They pride themselves on rarely if ever in their history having had Anglo pastors. It is all very interesting. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. In your reply, I see different uses and meaning of the derivative words "saved," "save," and "salvation." So to know we are talking about the same thing we need context. Being saved to me is an aorist concept (it happens at a point in time). For Saints, being saved is a present tense concept - something that begins at a point and continues over time. Is that not correct? For the Saint, it seems to me (I am not telling you what you believe) that salvation and exaltation are part of the same process.

I by no means hold myself up as a centrist saint in my views, but I believe that salvation is a present tense concept. If I kneel to pray and ask for forgiveness, and seek to right my wrongs, I believe I "am saved." If I were to die right then, I would bypass Hell, and go to await resurrection in paradise. I believe that is a much different process than exaltation. Angels can die saved, but not reach exaltation. So, I don't consider it the same "process" at all. Maybe it is on a continuum, along the same path, but the two are quite distinguishable. We are rewarded based on our degree of exaltation. To receive all the Father hath is the goal - not everyone receives that promise, and Yeshua never said anything like that. That is where I think modern Christianity has lost lots of truth. They view heaven as one big room all saved people go to, when Yeshua said the Father's house has many rooms. Everyone in those rooms is saved from Hell, but have not received the same degrees of glory - because His house(of Elohim) is a house of many rooms.

Quote

From me, salvation and sanctification are two different processes. I think that sanctification is the closest thing I understand to the LDS concept of exaltation.

I agree. What Paul calls sanctification, I call exaltation. 

Quote

The difference is that sanctification is me become more "like" God; for you it is becoming "as" God. I am not sure that difference is an essential.

I don't see a difference. I think the difference you perceive is due to the doctrines of trinitinarianism. Yeshua prayed that we may be one with He and the Father even as He was one. The Roman catechism preserves the early patristic concept of theosis that was obviously in early Christianity, and I believe got replaced later with doctrines of the trinity. I believe we can be every much as one with the Father as Yeshua is - and even as He prayed for it. And actually, I believe this is the teaching and hope of the atonement - God looks for a godly seed. 

Quote

Now, personally, I am trapped a bit in my Mennonite (Arminian - one can lose his or her salvation) perspective and my Baptist (Once saved - always saved because we are saved by Christ's grip on us, not ours on Him) perspectives. I am trending toward my Arminian side right now, which I believe is more similar to the concept of salvation of the Saints.  

I agree. LDS definitely believe we can fall. Now Yeshua said none can wrest away those given to Him by the Father, but we certainly can choose not to follow. We can wrest ourselves away. However, I believe Christ will do everything He can to soften our hearts and win us back.

Quote

My baptismal covenants are much more oriented toward sanctification than salvation because I would never have been baptized had I not demonstrated that I was "already" saved. I know that is different than the LDS thinking. Is it essential? Probably to the Saint, not to me. So it is complicated.

I am LDS and that is my thinking. I believe we need to repent to be prepared for baptism. I am sure that is in LDS doctrine somewhere. The bishop conducts worthiness interviews beforehand as well. 

Quote

It is further complicated by the similarities and differences in terms. The everlasting life of John 3:16 is not the same thing as the eternal life of II Nephi 31:20. Very few people in either the LDS Christian community or the non-LDS Christian community try to understand the differences and similarities in our verbiage. This is because we all think we already know and understand the other. Our shared culture, history, and personal experiences are most often sufficient and all we really want to know. I think that is a shame and a tragedy. That is why I attend a ward and hang around here for a year and a half. I want to know correctly and understand more fully. It isn't easy. Trust isn't very high on either side. I think a real challenge to trust is the commonality that each side believes that any engagement with the other is most likely for the purpose of conversion or misrepresentation. That is a real hurdle; I am not sure how to overcome it. It is ingrained in the psyche and therefore in the doctrine of both (in a reductionist thinking) groups.  

I admire you as someone willing to leap that bridge of trust, and willing to be hurt in the process. i do agree that the verbiage is used differently among Saints and Evangelicals, but I think the same is true of Catholics and Evangelicals. I think the conversation you seek to have is worthwhile. I just want you to know that I consider you to be one of the rare internet friends I have met online. I believe you to be straightforward, and that you do not have an axe to grind. I know you are not always trusted, but I can only speak for myself in saying that I trust you, and enjoy our conversations. It brings to mind another internet friend I met from Sweden. He took a test to see which denomination he might align best with - one was LDS. He said even higher was Mennonite! I think he tried the Mennonites for awhile, but I think he has dropped that. Anyway in light of the bond I think we made, I find our present conversation intriguing. I wonder what it is about the Mennonite sect and the LDS sect which seems to find common ground? 

Link to comment
Quote

Talking with missionaries here, there just seems to be a tacit assumption that their faith is the best (or the only) so therefore folks should just naturally recognize that with a recitation of the message and join up. 

I don't know about personal interpretations, but it is generally presented by leaders in my experience as it is the Spirit that converts and that time is best spent creating opportunities to experience the Spirit through reading scripture, prayer, etc.  Now being kids, there may definitely be many who see whatever they do as superior to others.  My husband had a companion who would never take advice because he was from California.  I know other kids who felt the same way because they were from back east, were jocks, were geeks, were the oldest in their family, the youngest, etc. and somehow that made them feel better informed/more experienced than others.  More than likely that is simply what they used to justify their feelings of superiority (so common among those who are actually deep down rather insecure about their place in life).

Kids who are taking two years out of their life and often years of hard work earning money to pay for it are likely going to feel the drive to commit so much because what they are teaching is what they believe others need to hear. I can't imagine asking a young man or woman to sacrifice that much on the off chance they might meet someone who the Church can benefit but viewing most others as doing fine without it.

Being able to debate is seen as counterproductive by most members and leaders in my experience (for example, over the years FairMormon has gotten challenged on occasion by members who saw any defense of the Church as wrong/unnecessary and not a few who were offended by the word apologetics as they interpreted that as offering apologies; when it happens now it helps that in emphasizing our supportive/informative role we can point to the Church using us as a reference for additional resources).  I have seen a lot of discouragement of missionaries doing any debating/bashing.  

Discussing people's personal beliefs to contrast them to our beliefs is probably seen as too close to debating and young, untrained, and enthusiastic missionaries likely too prone to go too far, so learning others' beliefs would likely be seen most useful as similar to learning people's cultural background...as a way to understand them better, not as a way to help convert.  I don't know how much culture is actually taught in the MTC, I would assume much is focused on what not to do to offend rather than to promote enjoyment of the culture...that is probably seen as more of the individual's responsibility.

Back in the 60s I believe, studies were done on what made the difference for those converts who stayed active for many years after conversion, the conclusion was the turning point happened early on when they felt the Spirit witness to the truth.  At that time, they switched from long, ongoing indepth teaching and waiting to offer baptism to the short set of lessons where baptism is offered quite early.  I would assume they still do studies on what are the most effective teaching and retention methods.  There have been a number of recommendations published over the years such as having lessons in members' homes.

My personal preference would be lots of teaching of the culture and religion of the people they will be interacting with, but there is only so much time to prepare.  And if I were a missionary, sitting in a classroom for the additional hours would be excrutiating when I could be out in the real world learning from the people themselves.  It makes sense to teach enough so most do not feel so hopelessly lost they shut down, but rely more on the immersion experience of real life to teach the background beyond the very basics.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 4/15/2019 at 3:39 PM, Calm said:

If I heard any Saint suggesting other Christians were not Christian based on whether or not they were of my faith, I would have a hard time not letting them have it.  I think that would be the most ridiculous thing I have heard taught at Church if I heard it.  I think I have heard it one or twice on this board from some poster who had rather extreme views, but I think most fellow Saints would look at me bewildered about how I could even ask if other believers in Christ were Christian.  It is, imo, nonsensical.

Just because we can claim to be Christian doesn't mean we can deny the name to others.

  1. “Orthodox Christian views of God are pagan rather than Christian” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B. H. Roberts [General Authority], 116).
  2. I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong . . . their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History1:19).
  3. “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).
  4. [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).
  5. “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...