Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Putting these two posts together leads me to believe that your definition of a Christian is someone who:

1) Has a remission of sins through Christ,

2) Has the Gift of the Holy Spirit present with them all the time,

3) Has the promise of eternal and everlasting life.

I see a couple of problems with this definition. First, if you asked me "is Navidad a Christian" and the criterion I have to use to answer that question are these three things, I would have to say "I don't know." How do I know if your sins have been forgiven, if you have the Holy Spirit, or if you will be heaven? Those are things that only God knows. This would be true of every single person. By this definition, I don't know if there is a single Christian on earth. That makes this definition of a Christian not very useful.

Another problem is that a large number of non-LDS Christians would use these three criteria to deny LDS of being Christian.

I think a more useful definition of Christian is someone who claims to be a Christian and their beliefs fall within the large and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity. By that definition you, Navidad, are a Christian, and LDS are Christians, too.

Yes! Yes! Yes!  On all counts. You nailed it. You don't know if I am a Christian because you don't know me well enough. That is a wonderful, accurate, and perfectly “true” answer. No one knows who else is a Christian based on claims, church membership, or even doctrine. There is no offense in saying, “I would have to know you better as a person.” That is what I would expect (from my perspective) you to say! That is why I constantly say on this forum that I believe members of the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and I would extend that even broader, can and may be a Christian. That is why I value uncertainty and incertitude and talk about that (and write about it) so much. Yes, it is highly likely that certainty and faith are oppositional. 

I do not think going around and deciding who is or who is not a Christian is a very profitable use of someone's time or judgment. Of course, simply saying someone isn't by virtue of the church affiliation, ancillary beliefs that are not essential to the gospel, etc. is appropriate either. Denying someone the three joys of Christendom simply because of your own unique doctrine (not being a conscientious objector, for example) is folly (in my mind).

The non-LDS Christians who deny the three criteria to LDS-Christians are just as culpable, and frankly, silly. I don't need someone who doesn't know me to think I am a Christian. I do desire the same person not to disqualify me without knowing me based on a doctrinal checklist.

Christianity is an individual matter; not a club. It is not a sect with initiatory rites like being a Mason. It is a personally, individually lived relationship with the Savior. Being a (note the individual article) Christian is not a badge someone owns; it is a relationship that someone lives. Judging is one of the great sins of religious intolerance. We used to sing a song as a kid. The line we kept repeating was “Whosoever will may come!” Amen!  

I 

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Let's look at this from the perspective of the Catholic Church. We consider you Christian in both larger definition (your belief in Christ) and sacramentally (your baptism was valid). Yet we would definitely continue to teach you. We would catechize you, form you, for a year or longer (some people take two or three years) until receiving you into the Church through confirmation and the Eucharist at Easter time. This is officially called the Order of Christian Initiation for Adults (OCIA, previously known as RCIA).

So we don't differ from the LDS here. We sincerely look at you as Christian, yet would teach you, catechize you, form you, and then confirm you, and would be very happy that you joined the Catholic Church.

I will respectfully suggest what you are describing now is indeed a completely different process. Your OCIA is for church membership in a specific church, not an initiatory rite into Christianity itself. Perhaps before Vatican II, what you said would be the same as the LDS. But, no longer. Every Christian organization that I know has teaching opportunities or requirements before membership in the specific and individual church. It is like becoming Mennonite. You would be taught the importance to Mennonites of putting aside violence, footwashing, etc., something I might not understand coming into a Mennonite church from being Lutheran, or Catholic, or LDS.

The difference is that coming into the LDS church grants you a first-time access into the three joys of Christianity that no one outside the LDS church may experience. This is the place for someone to tell me I am doctrinally incorrect but for the LDS there is no remission of sin in any other church or ordinance outside of LDS baptism, confirmation and receipt of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no full and complete Christianity outside the LDS church. None of the OCIA processes as you describe them that I, Navidads would undergo in today's Catholic church is for remission of sin. If I am wrong, I am sure you will let me know (and you should).

Entrance into the kingdom of God is a path taken by one person at a time. Entrance into a church organization may or may not be one's first encounter with the Kingdom of God and the fellowship of the believers. So, I will respectfully suggest you do differ from the LDS here. The mainstream Catholic Church makes no more claim to exclusivityas it did in the 19th century and before. You might as a member of a certain conservative branch of Catholicism, but that is not the current belief of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church as the organization led by the Pope today, is it? Thanks. 

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes! Yes! Yes!  On all counts. You nailed it. You don't know if I am a Christian because you don't know me well enough. That is a wonderful, accurate, and perfectly “true” answer. No one knows who else is a Christian based on claims, church membership, or even doctrine. There is no offense in saying, “I would have to know you better as a person.” That is what I would expect (from my perspective) you to say!

But by your criteria, I could be your best friend and not know if you are a Christian. How do I know if God has forgiven your sins? Or if you have the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Or if you are going to heaven? Only God knows that. In fact, I am explicitly told by Christ not to judge where you are going after death. So the problem isn't that I don't know you; the problem is that by those criteria I can never know if you are a Christian.

 

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That is why I constantly say on this forum that I believe members of the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and I would extend that even broader, can and may be a Christian. That is why I value uncertainty and incertitude and talk about that (and write about it) so much. Yes, it is highly likely that certainty and faith are oppositional. 

I don't disagree here. If someone claims to be a Christian and their beliefs fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity, then they are Christian. And yeah, faith requires mystery and uncertainty. But that's an issue of faith. Here we are simply talking about words and labels.

 

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I do not think going around and deciding who is or who is not a Christian is a very profitable use of someone's time or judgment.

I agree, which is why the definition of Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian with beliefs that fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity is useful. Minimal effort required there. It's not that important, but labels can be useful at times, such as when I am admitted to the hospital and they ask my religious affiliation so I can be attended to by a Catholic priest if necessary.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Of course, simply saying someone isn't by virtue of the church affiliation, ancillary beliefs that are not essential to the gospel, etc. is appropriate either.

I assume you meant "isn't appropriate." I totally agree. Again, if they claim to be Christian and their beliefs fall within the umbrella of Christianity, then voila! Christian!

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Denying someone the three joys of Christendom simply because of your own unique doctrine (not being a conscientious objector, for example) is folly (in my mind).

How does another's belief on whether or not you are Christian deny you the three joys of Christendom? I can see why it might bother you, just like it bothers our LDS friends when they are told they are not Christian, but that doesn't take away your joy of being a Christian, does it? I've been called an idolator for being a Catholic, and that didn't take away my joy at being a Catholic. It bothered me because I'm not an idolator, though.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The non-LDS Christians who deny the three criteria to LDS-Christians are just as culpable, and frankly, silly. I don't need someone who doesn't know me to think I am a Christian. I do desire the same person not to disqualify me without knowing me based on a doctrinal checklist.

What is your basis of using the three criteria to determine if someone is Christian? Why use a much more complicated, subjective, and frankly unknowable list of requirements instead of a simple: they claim it and their beliefs are close enough?

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Christianity is an individual matter; not a club. It is not a sect with initiatory rites like being a Mason.

This is your protestant view coming through. You are claiming the definition of Christianity is based on what protestants believe. The Catholic Church, with over 1 billion adherents, disagrees with you (and frankly, your reference to "club" and masonry is a little condescending).

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is a personally, individually lived relationship with the Savior. Being a (note the individual article) Christian is not a badge someone owns; it is a relationship that someone lives. Judging is one of the great sins of religious intolerance.

I agree, but by your definition and the three criteria, I absolutely would have to judge someone to determine if they are a Christian. I would have decide: are their sins forgiven, do they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are they going to heaven. That's judgement on a massive scale!

Now, do I go around daily trying to determine if someone is a Christian? Nah, it hardly ever comes up. But sometimes it does, such as the point of this thread, when the military judged that LDS are not Christian. So this thread is a good contextual time to discuss it.

Yes, you are Christian, as are our LDS friends. By saying that, I don't have to spend much energy, nor do I have to judge the state of someone's soul (which is a big no-no according to Christ). I just think: they claim they are Christian and their beliefs fit within Christianity's big umbrella, so easy-peasy, they are Christian.

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But by your criteria, I could be your best friend and not know if you are a Christian. How do I know if God has forgiven your sins? Or if you have the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Or if you are going to heaven? Only God knows that. In fact, I am explicitly told by Christ not to judge where you are going after death. So the problem isn't that I don't know you; the problem is that by those criteria I can never know if you are a Christian.

 

I don't disagree here. If someone claims to be a Christian and their beliefs fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity, then they are Christian. And yeah, faith requires mystery and uncertainty. But that's an issue of faith. Here we are simply talking about words and labels.

 

I agree, which is why the definition of Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian with beliefs that fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity is useful. Minimal effort required there. It's not that important, but labels can be useful at times, such as when I am admitted to the hospital and they ask my religious affiliation so I can be attended to by a Catholic priest if necessary.

I assume you meant "isn't appropriate." I totally agree. Again, if they claim to be Christian and their beliefs fall within the umbrella of Christianity, then voila! Christian!

How does another's belief on whether or not you are Christian deny you the three joys of Christendom? I can see why it might bother you, just like it bothers our LDS friends when they are told they are not Christian, but that doesn't take away your joy of being a Christian, does it? I've been called an idolator for being a Catholic, and that didn't take away my joy at being a Catholic. It bothered me because I'm not an idolator, though.

What is your basis of using the three criteria to determine if someone is Christian? Why use a much more complicated, subjective, and frankly unknowable list of requirements instead of a simple: they claim it and their beliefs are close enough?

This is your protestant view coming through. You are claiming the definition of Christianity is based on what protestants believe. The Catholic Church, with over 1 billion adherents, disagrees with you (and frankly, your reference to "club" and masonry is a little condescending).

I agree, but by your definition and the three criteria, I absolutely would have to judge someone to determine if they are a Christian. I would have decide: are their sins forgiven, do they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are they going to heaven. That's judgement on a massive scale!

Now, do I go around daily trying to determine if someone is a Christian? Nah, it hardly ever comes up. But sometimes it does, such as the point of this thread, when the military judged that LDS are not Christian. So this thread is a good contextual time to discuss it.

Yes, you are Christian, as are our LDS friends. By saying that, I don't have to spend much energy, nor do I have to judge the state of someone's soul (which is a big no-no according to Christ). I just think: they claim they are Christian and their beliefs fit within Christianity's big umbrella, so easy-peasy, they are Christian.

Sorry, I never intended to be condescending. On the other hand., I find the totality of your response a bit confusing. That is ok. I am easily confused these days. 

I do like to get to know people; that isn't a Protestant trait (I am not Protestant, by the way). Both Protestants and Catholics regularly killed us; so we don't tend to affiliate as either. Perhaps it is condescending to suggest I am Protestant, especially with a small p as you typed it! Maybe that is the Catholic in you! Ha! Gotcha back!  At any rate, believing that Christianity is a personal thing that can be observed via relationships, is not being judgmental in my worldview. We are advised in Scripture to know people by their "fruits." (Matthew 7).  My valuing of incertitude and my belief in a wideness in God's mercy, are backstops from being judgmental. Maybe that is a blindspot I have. I always have liked the Johari Window. Take care and very best wishes. 

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But by your criteria, I could be your best friend and not know if you are a Christian. How do I know if God has forgiven your sins? Or if you have the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Or if you are going to heaven? Only God knows that. In fact, I am explicitly told by Christ not to judge where you are going after death. So the problem isn't that I don't know you; the problem is that by those criteria I can never know if you are a Christian.

OK, perhaps that is the best outcome of all. Never knowing is better than knowing before knowledge, especially when based solely on a priori doctrine or dogma (used in a non-Catholic sense of the word). Take care. 

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I will respectfully suggest what you are describing now is indeed a completely different process. Your OCIA is for church membership in a specific church, not an initiatory rite into Christianity itself. Perhaps before Vatican II, what you said would be the same as the LDS. But, no longer. Every Christian organization that I know has teaching opportunities or requirements before membership in the specific and individual church. It is like becoming Mennonite. You would be taught the importance to Mennonites of putting aside violence, footwashing, etc., something I might not understand coming into a Mennonite church from being Lutheran, or Catholic, or LDS.

This is a protestant view. The Catholic Church does not view herself as one church among equals. Far from it. I respectfully ask if you have studied the documents from Vatican II? Many have not even read them, and go off of the idea of "the spirit of Vatican II" which often directly contradicts the documents, or repeat things about Vatican II they have heard but are incorrect.

This is from Unitatis Redintagratio, the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism, regarding non-Catholic Christians:

Quote

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

This clearly shows the Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is not one among equals, but is the repository of the blessings of Christ and his gospel.

This doesn't mean non-Catholics aren't Christian, though. From the same document:

Quote

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

I mentioned it earlier in this thread: it does make me kinda giggle that we consider non-Catholic Christians part of the Catholic Church, just in imperfect or partial communion. We're coming for your soul whether you like it or not!  

This is from Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

Quote

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The full Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, led by the pope and bishops. Elements of the Church of Christ are found outside of the Catholic Church, but only in the Catholic Church is the fulness.

 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The difference is that coming into the LDS church grants you a first-time access into the three joys of Christianity that no one outside the LDS church may experience.

Let's see what our LDS friends say about this.

Baptism: My take on their position is that they alone have the correct baptism for the remission of sins because they alone possess God's priestly authority to do so. I don't think they would deny that God can forgive sins whenever He wants, though? And can grant grace even to those who are unbaptized? The Catholic Church holds that God can give grace wherever He pleases, even though she considers herself the only Church with the full means of salvation.

Gift of the Holy Spirit: My understanding of their belief is that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) can work with anyone He wants in any capacity He wants, but that confirmation  in their church gives a special relationship to the Holy Spirit. It does not deny the gifts of the Spirit to those who are not confirmed, instead it affirms a special relationship. This could be me looking at their beliefs through my Catholicism, because we believe confirmation adds a special strength to the confirmed. From the catechism:

Quote

For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. 

Promise of Heaven: My understanding of their view is that you will get there if you want to get there. Their view of the afterlife seems to be quite universalist, with baptism for the dead, etc.

 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This is the place for someone to tell me I am doctrinally incorrect but for the LDS there is no remission of sin in any other church or ordinance outside of LDS baptism, confirmation and receipt of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no full and complete Christianity outside the LDS church.

It's interesting because this is the Catholic view about the Catholic Church as shown in the quoted documents above. Only the Catholic Church has full and complete Christianity, even though there are elements of it found elsewhere.

 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

None of the OCIA processes as you describe them that I, Navidads would undergo in today's Catholic church is for remission of sin. If I am wrong, I am sure you will let me know (and you should).

I guess it depends on what you mean by remission of sin. We believe the forgiveness of sins is an on-going thing, not a one time thing, but I think some protestants don't believe that? We believe that a valid baptism removes all sin, including original sin. But then you can sin after that. To remove mortal and venial sins, there is the sacrament of confession. Also, receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sins.

So yes, joining today's Catholic Church would grant you, Navidad, forgiveness of sins. You've already been baptized, but the complete Order of Christian Initiation would have you be confirmed (getting that special strength and relationship with the Holy Spirit), then receive the Eucharist (which grants grace and forgives venial sins). However, prior to confirmation, it is required that you go to your first confession for the forgiveness of mortal sins.

This is not a conservative or traditional view of the Sacraments. This is what would happen in any parish where you undergo OCIA.

 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Entrance into the kingdom of God is a path taken by one person at a time. Entrance into a church organization may or may not be one's first encounter with the Kingdom of God and the fellowship of the believers. So, I will respectfully suggest you do differ from the LDS here. The mainstream Catholic Church makes no more claim to exclusivityas it did in the 19th century and before.

The mainstream Catholic Church absolutely makes claims to exclusivity, as shown in the Vatican II documents above.

 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You might as a member of a certain conservative branch of Catholicism, but that is not the current belief of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church as the organization led by the Pope today, is it? Thanks. 

Again, reference the Vatican II documents. I can provide more quotes if you'd like, or you can read through them. The mainstream Catholic Church, as led by the Pope today, claims to be the one and only Church to have the fullness of the Church of Christ. If someone denies that, then they are contradicting the official documents of the last Ecumenical Council that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

Eastern Orthodoxy (that Pope St. John Paul II famously called one of the two lungs of the Church), is a close second as they have valid orders (priesthood) and thus fully valid sacraments, but are not united with the Pope.

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

that isn't a Protestant trait (I am not Protestant, by the way)

I apologize, I thought you were Protestant (capital P). My understanding is that Anabaptists were Protestants, but I have not studied it and obviously defer to you.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We do now. We didn’t so much in the early days. They were all apostate and were going to hell.

Plus this is still in D&C 127:

“It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.”

“For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—“

So the view of the rest of Christianity was:

And they are the mainspring of all corruption.

We acknowledged that others professed to be followers of Christ and that the other Christian churches blind sincere seekers of truth through deception.

 

I know the Church now is focusing much more on camaraderie and a kind of ecumenicalism but that is not how it has always been.

I don't interpret those verses in 127 the same as you.  That was definitely the view of the creeds, especially expressed in this section which was written by JS while he was in hiding fearing for his life, pursued by people who professed to be 'Christian' and used upholding the creeds as their justification/excuse for all the evils they committed.  And for sure the use of the label 'Christian' was different back then.  I don't even know that latter-day saints in JS's day thought of themselves as Christian, as it seemed to be mostly applied only to protestants and not even to Catholics in that day.  

But Joseph seemed to look very charitably on other Christians.  (Below are some quotes that I got from one of Dan Peterson's articles)

Quote

 

"And now, sir, this is the sole cause of the persecution against the Mormon people, and now, if they had been Mohammedans, Hottentots, or Pagans, or in fine sir, if their religion was as false as hell, what right would men have to drive them from their homes, and their country, or to exterminate them, so long as their religion did not interfere with the civil rights of men, according to the laws of our country? None at all….

I have the most liberal sentiments and feelings of charity towards all sects, parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of conscience I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for differing with me in matters of opinion."

 

Those who knew or heard JS speak who weren't latter-day saints also seemed to believe he had a charitable view of them.

Quote

 

In 1842 or 1843, a Methodist preacher by the name of Prior visited Nauvoo and, on the Sabbath day, attended religious services for the purpose of hearing a sermon by the Prophet. He subsequently published the following description of Joseph’s remarks and demeanor:

"I will not attempt to describe the various feelings of my bosom as I took my seat in a conspicuous place in the congregation, who were waiting in breathless silence for his appearance. While he tarried, I had plenty of time to revolve in my mind the character and common report of that truly singular personage. I fancied that I should behold a countenance sad and sorrowful, yet containing the fiery marks of rage and exasperation. I supposed that I should be enabled to discover in him some of those thoughtful and reserved features, those mystic and sarcastic glances, which I had fancied the ancient sages to possess. I expected to see that fearful, faltering look of conscious shame which, from what I had heard of him, he might be expected to evince. He appeared at last; but how was I disappointed when instead of the head and horns of the beast and false prophet, I beheld only the appearance of a common man, of tolerably large proportions. I was sadly disappointed, and thought that, although his appearance could not be wrested to indicate anything against him, yet he would manifest all I had heard of him when he began to preach. I sat uneasily, and watched him closely. He commenced preaching, not from the Book of Mormon, however, but from the Bible; the first chapter of the first of Peter was his text. He commenced calmly, and continued dispassionately to pursue his subject, while I sat in breathless silence, waiting to hear that foul aspersion of the other sect, that diabolical disposition of revenge, and to hear rancorous denunciation of every individual but a Mormon; I waited in vain; I listened with surprise; I sat uneasy in my seat, and could hardly persuade myself but that he had been apprised of my presence, and so ordered his discourse on my account, that I might not be able to find fault with it; for instead of a jumbled jargon of half-connected sentences, and a volley of imprecations, and diabolical and malignant denunciations, heaped upon the heads of all who differed from him, and the dreadful twisting and wresting of the Scriptures to suit his own peculiar views, and attempt to weave a web of dark and mystic sophistry around the gospel truths, which I had anticipated, he glided along through a very interesting and elaborate discourse with all the care and happy facility of one who was well aware of his important station, and his duty to God and man."

 

Joseph even had other Christian ministers speak to the saints from time to time, and so did BY in salt lake city.

Quote

“President Young,” reported George Q. Cannon, said he wanted the people to hear these men and their views. For years this was done. Prominent ministers were invited to speak to us. I remember Methodist bishops and others preaching to us… Why? Because we were willing to extend liberty to everybody. And Moses Thatcher, a member of the Twelve in the period following Brigham Young, commented in 1882 that the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit have prompted the Presidency and Apostles of this Church to open meeting-houses and Tabernacles for ministers of various religious denominations to preach in; while our Elders were being persecuted, hunted and sometimes whipped by members of these same denominations."

This speech is probably one of JS's most famous, on God's views of people of different religions, or who do not accept the gospel as the LDS church teaches it:

Quote

 

“The Mussulman,” he taught, condemns the heathen, the Jew, and the Christian, and the whole world of mankind that reject his Koran, as infidels, and consigns the whole of them to perdition. The Jew believes that the whole world that rejects his faith and are not circumcised, are Gentile dogs, and will be damned. The heathen is equally as tenacious about his principles, and the Christian consigns all to perdition who cannot bow to his creed, and submit to his ipse dixit.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, “according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil,” or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts [sic], their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right."

 

Here's what Dan Peterson says at the end of the article, after he shares quotes from JS:

Quote

 

What I wish to demonstrate, however, more than Joseph Smith’s commitment to religious tolerance (which might have been expected of any reasonably ethical American in his day), is the positive appreciation of other faiths that he and his successors have encouraged. Appreciation, high esteem, is greater than tolerance.

At first, this might seem an impossible task, for the history of Mormonism and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins with Joseph Smith’s 1820 First Vision, in which he is told that the churches then on the earth were in a state of apostasy and not pleasing to God. But the situation is much more complex and interesting than one might guess at first exposure. Mormonism is an exclusivist faith that sends missionaries around the world to invite others to accept the doctrines and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is undeniable. But it is equally true, though far less widely known and understood, that Mormonism is also an inclusivist faith that not only sees and appreciates goodness and truth in other religious traditions but is willing to acknowledge divine action in those other traditions.

When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn’t mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is “corrupt” means that it has been damaged. We speak of “corrupted texts” or “corrupted files,” intending to say that they have been infected or tainted—not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different. A corrupt senator is still a senator.

In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior, and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central Gospel truths.

God’s sheep recognize his voice, even when it’s in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can, and, in the Latter-day Saint view, will not lose their reward.

In fact, critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes object to what they see as its eclectic character, pointing to its alleged resemblances to different denominations and traditions. On at least one historical occasion, it was difficult for outsiders who did not know that they were listening to Latter-day Saints to identify the religious affiliation of Mormon preachers because of the parallels in the preachers’ doctrines to a wide range of other groups.

A simple but early example will serve to begin the discussion: In December 1830, Sidney Rigdon, a Campbellite minister who had just been baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the previous month and who would go on to become a leader in early Mormonism, was told in a revelation given to Joseph Smith that the Lord had “prepared [him] for a greater work” — clearly implying that his dedicated service as a non-Mormon clergyman had already been a great work.

 

For sure, we have had seasons or members in the church where we were more judgemental against others who disagreed with us than we are now.  We have our 'worst' just like every other group does.  And we have our 'best' like every other group does as well.  Generally speaking though, despite our theological differences and some of the hard feelings that came out of decades of persecution and harm, we have not made it difficult for non-latter-day saints to be included in the Christian category.

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That was definitely the view of the creeds, especially expressed in this section which was written by JS while he was in hiding fearing for his life, pursued by people who professed to be 'Christian' and used upholding the creeds as their justification/excuse for all the evils they committed.

Hi bluebell: I think you are making my point for me. People 'who profess to be Christian" are not always so - by their fruits you may know them. A claim many not be real in substance.  I would however suggest that if you are talking about Missouri, the vast number of "Christians" in Missouri were not creedal. I believe I am correct that Primitive Baptists were the largest Protestant group in Missouri in those years. Primitive Baptists certainly were not creedal. They didn't do bad things because of their creeds. They did bad things to protect their land, their access to natural resources, and their way of life as they knew it. These things combined with their faith were their patrimony. Throughout human history people have done bad things to protect what is their understood patrimony. The Saints threatened each of these, just as they did here in Mexico. Much conflict that is blamed on religious beliefs is often a result of a very complicated stew of factors. Religious doctrine is often just the seasoning in the stew. 

[Navidad]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a protestant view. The Catholic Church does not view herself as one church among equals. Far from it. I respectfully ask if you have studied the documents from Vatican II? Many have not even read them, and go off of the idea of "the spirit of Vatican II" which often directly contradicts the documents, or repeat things about Vatican II they have heard but are incorrect.

This is from Unitatis Redintagratio, the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism, regarding non-Catholic Christians:

This clearly shows the Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is not one among equals, but is the repository of the blessings of Christ and his gospel.

This doesn't mean non-Catholics aren't Christian, though. From the same document:

I mentioned it earlier in this thread: it does make me kinda giggle that we consider non-Catholic Christians part of the Catholic Church, just in imperfect or partial communion. We're coming for your soul whether you like it or not!  

This is from Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

The full Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, led by the pope and bishops. Elements of the Church of Christ are found outside of the Catholic Church, but only in the Catholic Church is the fulness.

 

Let's see what our LDS friends say about this.

Baptism: My take on their position is that they alone have the correct baptism for the remission of sins because they alone possess God's priestly authority to do so. I don't think they would deny that God can forgive sins whenever He wants, though? And can grant grace even to those who are unbaptized? The Catholic Church holds that God can give grace wherever He pleases, even though she considers herself the only Church with the full means of salvation.

Gift of the Holy Spirit: My understanding of their belief is that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) can work with anyone He wants in any capacity He wants, but that confirmation  in their church gives a special relationship to the Holy Spirit. It does not deny the gifts of the Spirit to those who are not confirmed, instead it affirms a special relationship. This could be me looking at their beliefs through my Catholicism, because we believe confirmation adds a special strength to the confirmed. From the catechism:

Promise of Heaven: My understanding of their view is that you will get there if you want to get there. Their view of the afterlife seems to be quite universalist, with baptism for the dead, etc.

 

It's interesting because this is the Catholic view about the Catholic Church as shown in the quoted documents above. Only the Catholic Church has full and complete Christianity, even though there are elements of it found elsewhere.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by remission of sin. We believe the forgiveness of sins is an on-going thing, not a one time thing, but I think some protestants don't believe that? We believe that a valid baptism removes all sin, including original sin. But then you can sin after that. To remove mortal and venial sins, there is the sacrament of confession. Also, receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sins.

So yes, joining today's Catholic Church would grant you, Navidad, forgiveness of sins. You've already been baptized, but the complete Order of Christian Initiation would have you be confirmed (getting that special strength and relationship with the Holy Spirit), then receive the Eucharist (which grants grace and forgives venial sins). However, prior to confirmation, it is required that you go to your first confession for the forgiveness of mortal sins.

This is not a conservative or traditional view of the Sacraments. This is what would happen in any parish where you undergo OCIA.

 

The mainstream Catholic Church absolutely makes claims to exclusivity, as shown in the Vatican II documents above.

 

Again, reference the Vatican II documents. I can provide more quotes if you'd like, or you can read through them. The mainstream Catholic Church, as led by the Pope today, claims to be the one and only Church to have the fullness of the Church of Christ. If someone denies that, then they are contradicting the official documents of the last Ecumenical Council that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

Eastern Orthodoxy (that Pope St. John Paul II famously called one of the two lungs of the Church), is a close second as they have valid orders (priesthood) and thus fully valid sacraments, but are not united with the Pope.

 

 

Ok. Thanks. I would simply suggest that the understanding of the impact of Vatican II documents on the Catholic Church is not universally understood, accepted, or embraced by worldwide Catholics of every doctrinal and cultural background. That has been strikingly evident within the Catholic Church here in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. Just in our little village every few years, priests come and go, some representing different factions, priorities, training, teachings, and understanding of Catholic doctrine and orthopraxy.  Oh, and yes you will find Anabaptists who believe they are Protestant. There is significant diversity, especially in the past seventy years in Anabaptism, depending on many factors that may supersede strict adherence to doctrine conformity. Cultural differences are giant factors in how the Anabaptist faith is understood and practiced. Ditto for Catholic interpretation of Vatican II and other factors. Hitchcock's works on Catholic history are well-written and informative. He once wrote:

“In order to understand what the Catholic Church is and what it means to be a Catholic, one has to understand the evolution and development of dogma, the various kinds of spirituality, the relationship between the Church and cultures, and religious art and music.” Good stuff. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi bluebell: I think you are making my point for me. People 'who profess to be Christian" are not always so - by their fruits you may know them. A claim many not be real in substance. 

I think part of the disconnect you and I are having is that we are using to different definitions of "Christian".  You are using a theological definition while I am using the dictionary definition.  I don't find the theological definition useful, for the same reasons that MiserereNobis (and C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity) outlined.  It can never actually be applied, and a word that you can never use is a useless word in my opinion.

If you want to use a theological definition I don't have any problem with it, and support you applying it however you want.  But I don't need to know whether or not someone is a good Christian, or a saved Christian, or a whatever else Christian before using it.  I don't need to evaluation the substance of the claim, I just need to know whether or not the claim exists.   

Quote

I would however suggest that if you are talking about Missouri, the vast number of "Christians" in Missouri were not creedal. I believe I am correct that Primitive Baptists were the largest Protestant group in Missouri in those years. Primitive Baptists certainly were not creedal. They didn't do bad things because of their creeds. They did bad things to protect their land, their access to natural resources, and their way of life as they knew it. These things combined with their faith were their patrimony. Throughout human history people have done bad things to protect what is their understood patrimony. The Saints threatened each of these, just as they did here in Mexico. Much conflict that is blamed on religious beliefs is often a result of a very complicated stew of factors. Religious doctrine is often just the seasoning in the stew. 

I wasn't just talking about Missouri.  The persecution in Missouri lasted about 6 years while the persecution of the saints in general lasted 60+ years.  I completely agree with you in that much violence is done in the name of religion that actually has nothing to do with religion.  Though religion may be someone's outward justification for their acts, it's rarely the actual reason.  It's just the reason that sounds best when they say it outloud.

[Navidad]

I don't want to reply to individuals because I really don't want any contention, misunderstandings, etc with any friends here, LDS or not. Let me quote for you all from talk given by Robert D Hales of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. His topic is "Being a More Christian Christian." I am not suggesting that because of his position, his talk is authoritative for the church. but I find it helpful, especially since we may be talking about differing definitions. Here we go:

What does it mean to be a Christian?

"A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the literal Son of God, sent by His Father to suffer for our sins in the supreme act of love we know as the Atonement.

A Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, we can repent, forgive others, keep the commandments, and inherit eternal life.

The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

The talk goes on a long way, but the above is the gist of the definitional part of the talk. 

It certainly seems evident that for Elder Hales, an apostle of the Church that "the word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ." Fair enough. How do we do that? He answers, "We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority." 

I, Navidad have never been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laving on of hands by those holding HIs priesthood authority. Therefore, according to Elder Hales, I have not taken upon myself the name of Christ at this point of my life. Therefore, for Elder Hales speaking to the faithful, I do not have what it means to be a Christian. This is once again a theological definition, not a dictionary definition. It reflects the theology  of the LDS Church. Fair Enough. However, it seems to settle the question, "Is Navidad a Christian?" Has he taken upon himself the name of Christ? Nope! I don't know how else to approach this wonderfully important question, but to do so theologically. It is after all, a theological question.

Hence my comments earlier today that non-LDS Christians who have never taken upon themselves the name of Christ in a manner approved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are indeed not Christians according to the Church, regardless of my claim to be one. My only point is that it seems that sometimes my LDS friends have a blind spot. They understand and insist on the genuineness of their experience when they are denied the name of Christ by non-LDS Christians but fail to see the opposite when it happens the other way around. I wish it never happened either way, but that does not seem to be possible at this time.  I hope this helps. I am posting the link to Elder Hales' talk. Thanks to all. 

Being a More Christian Christian – LDSminds

Edited June 13 by Navidad
Clarification and typos

[Calm]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The times they are a changin.

For which I am very grateful.  I want to be in a faith that is open to not only learning additional knowledge, but correcting itself where there are errors with continuing revelation, which may come direct from God through the Spirit or pass through multiple hands of those doing the work of God, in and out of the Restored Church, imo.

I would be even more grateful if we talked about the changes and either labeled them as errors, incomplete, or unknown as to what God wanted them to do back in their day since we can’t tell when they were inspired and when they were not in many cases (God may send us a sense of peace over comments that trouble us, but if he does, that may mean he’s taking care of it, it’s not our burden, not that what prophets said and taught was always true), but I also understand that for many respect isn’t taking the other as they are and celebrating the good and acknowledging they erred in other ways and proactively contribute to the healing, but just focusing on celebrating the good, sometimes even without a nod to the errors assuming that will be enough for healing as if our spirits heal like a cut on our skin, we just need to keep it clean when the wound might be much deeper and therefore require intensive effort to remove the damage and support the healing.  

Our doctrine teaches there will be errors and that they will be made known, for now I am satisfied with that, but I look forward to more assertive efforts to heal the wounds from past errors.  I do believe making our history much more accessible to all and allowing scholars to lead the effort there is a massive step forward for acknowledgment.

Thanks for listing the examples.  I find the “so-called” pretty much equivalent to labeling someone not a Christian.  One or three of the others are close enough as well for me, some I don’t see as excluding, but saying they are bad examples.  Still it’s understandable that many would interpret them as implying others were not only bad examples, but not Christian.

Edited June 13 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I, Navidad have never been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laving on of hands by those holding HIs priesthood authority. Therefore, according to Elder Hales, I have not taken upon myself the name of Christ at this point of my life. Therefore, for Elder Hales speaking to the faithful, I do not have what it means to be a Christian.

I just now read that talk. 

I did not at all get the impression that Elder Hales is saying anything like, "we are the only true Christians and the rest of you are not." 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

"The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

Let me suggest a different reading of that statement than the one you seem to be using, my edits in bold below:

"The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority.  And this statement in no way precludes others from taking upon themselves the name of Christ through whatever means their beliefs call for." 

In my opinion. 

 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

For me, being a Christian is all about one thing—a genuine and sincere covenantal relationship with Christ, not a label.

I see it more like a family relationship with Christ as the family patriarch overseeing the vast numbers.  Some family members may put in a lot of effort to keep that tie strong and ever present in their thoughts and hearts with constant reaching out to communicate not only to the family head but to as many others in the family as possible.  For others, it amounts to recognizing they carry the patriarch’s surname with the sense of kinship that comes with it (or should).

 I have a relative whose personality changed in their teens and they became at times very aggressive in behaviour.  Even put significant distance between themselves and the rest of us and stopped communicating for a time.  But when they were in trouble, they reached out in despair and were answered with love and those who were needed traveled to their side and did what needed to be done and much more.  Most of the time this relative did and does very well with limited to no interaction with the rest of us.  Since it all started there has been more of that distance than the good or bad times.  

They are still part of my extended family even when intentionally trying to hurt other members of the family, even when they aren’t speaking to the rest of us.

There are other extended family members who maintain good, but limited relationships because their lives are busy and full of good things, but not the same good things other members are involved in.  We make connections at pretty much weddings and funerals.  There are other relatives who live down the street from us, a sister I talk to daily, a brother who lives across the world but took on the family role of ‘father’ when my dad died until Mom passed as well though he was the youngest because he was best suited.  Another set gets together every birthday of their deceased parents to celebrate their lives and the family as well as having a massive family reunion every Christmas and summer.

Iow, so many different relationships not just with the family leader, but with each other exist in a family.

Christ has called us his children. To me, that makes Christianity essentially a family, a very large and very dysfunctional family, but one nonetheless.  While some language is harsh (sheep and goats, wheat and tares), the parables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep, and lost coin stand out to me as lessons as why I should not be tempted to exclude others from a relationship with Christ, no matter how bad, as long as they see themselves in some way as connected to him enough to want the name of Christian for whatever reason.  I try to assume sincerity, but I will still accept another as Christian even if I believe they chose to be for power or wealth; if they did so, they will need to repent or they will suffer in the end, but I don’t read minds, so not my calling to say who these will be.  It is not my mission to determine if anyone is lying about that desire to be known by Christ’s name.  Not saying I can’t judge that they aren’t the best behaved of the family and I admit at times with some Christians I might prefer to cut family ties.  But I don’t have that right, Christ does.

PS:  I am not saying you are wrong and need to change your definition of Christian.  I think your definition is a beautiful one and I will try and remember it when I speak to you because I believe that is respectful.

But that doesn’t mean I will change my own definition of Christian to yours.  I don’t see respect or love requiring me to adopt your language or you to adopt mine, only to try and understand each other and adapt to increase understanding, such as through discussing the differences in usage of terms….just as I might discuss with a German their language and they mine, having especially fun times with words that look or sound the same but have very different meanings.

My 5 year old daughter loved calling her brother “brat” when we lived in Moscow.  She thought it the funniest thing.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I, Navidad have never been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laving on of hands by those holding HIs priesthood authority. Therefore, according to Elder Hales, I have not taken upon myself the name of Christ at this point of my life. Therefore, for Elder Hales speaking to the faithful, I do not have what it means to be a Christian.

Do you think we believe our Primary children younger than 8 learning tales of Jesus and his prophets in class are not Christian?  They have not been baptized either and have not taken on his name in that way.

We use the phrasing of “taking on his name” in the baptismal covenant to mean something different than taking the name of Christian.  Confusing the two because of similar phrasing is a mistake.  Words and phrases can mean more than one thing.

Edited June 13 by Calm

[Calm]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

A Christian is someone who is a sincere believer in Jesus Christ. 

And depends on how one defines “sincere”, they may not be that either and still be seen as Christian by us. 😛 

Edited June 13 by Calm

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

After years of faithful attendance, ministry, and miles of chapel carpet vacuuming, I could claim to be LDS, couldn't I?

I lived in Calgary, Canada longer than I had ever lived in one place (13 years) at that point and I was expecting to live there the rest of my life (I figured our kids would go to school there and therefor marry Canadians and we would want to be with them).  I volunteered even more in Canadian schools than I had in the US ones.  I had more Canadian friends and closer ones, was more active at church.  First ward and place I ever remembering feeling at home in (we moved out of my home state when I was 7 and between the distance to church and my mom’s poor health, there was very limited interaction with the families at church, my sister and I were the only LDS in our school and my family the only ones in our neighborhood, no other member my age was even in biking distance for an 7-12 year old; I remember something’s about church before I was 8, but not enough to have a sense of home; every ward since I was 7 until Canada I felt an outsider in even when they were very welcoming, it was me putting the distance between us, not them).

At that point in my life I identified as Canadian.  I wanted to be a Canadian.   I wasn’t a Canadian though.  And likely now never will be because we didn’t get citizenship papers when we had the chance (there were always other things more urgent and after the ridiculousness of just getting our residency, we were resting up a few years before taking on the citizenship fight…and then we had to move and move quickly; I have a massive regret we blew that because I deeply want to keep a legal connection with that country as well as an emotional one). 

 I don’t have the authority to proclaim myself a Canadian and have it be recognized by others even if I want to call myself one because I didn’t take the steps and now refuse to do so because the cost is too high for me (not just financial, but mostly family; my daughter would prefer moving back; I want to have residences in both places, but we can’t afford that; my son and husband have much stronger roots here).  Canada would have accepted me if I had taken the steps.  Not sure if they would now as a citizen due to health issues.  Not sure if our 13 years there would still count.   Whatever, desire and my own sense of identity and prior contributions would not qualify me as an official member of the Canadian nation.

I was born in San Francisco and lived there a few months.  I have no memories of living there, only visiting on field trips  and for fun (I lived in Pacifica, then San Bruno, then Redwood City).  I still call myself a San Franciscan and have the document to prove it even though I never contributed much more than the cost of a zoo, theatre, restaurant, or museum ticket on occasion to the city.  I don’t have the authority to legally describe myself as San Franciscan and very few would see me as part of the community there, but the city and the state it is part of have the authority to tell the world I am connected to the city, I belong to it in a certain way.

LDS are picky when it comes to authority lines (or at least how we define them).  Some religious communities are and others aren’t. Catholics appear to be picky about authority for somethings and not for others.   Some have other requirements they are picky about before accepting someone as a member (I recently learned you can’t join Jehovah Witnesses and be a member of the US military).  It is unfortunate if someone wants to be a member of a religious community and can’t be, especially when they have no choice in the matter (perhaps they must be born into the community).  If one has the ability to take the required steps, but still chooses not to take the steps, I don’t see how one can claim they had the commitment to be a member, but were rejected.  I can’t claim I had the commitment to be a Canadian and was unfairly turned down.  It was my choice to move away before we got our citizenship.  It’s my choice now not to move back and do whatever is necessary to become a citizen.  One might see the requirements as unjust, that the desire itself should be enough without any level if commitment or even a different one than the community has chosen, but that doesn’t change the fact one has chosen not to commit in the way required by a community.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is a label given every time an LDS missionary knocks on a door, discovers the inhabitant to be a committed Christian, and continues "teaching." That is a label given every time a church leader says "I know your wife is a godly lady, but she cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit! Oh, and that is nothing personal. It is just what our doctrine teaches." That in almost exact words from a national CEC leader (and friend) whose name many of you might know. 

Only if you insist we are using your definition of Christian when we are not.  The label is likely not being given in the way you claim by most missionaries even if some few perhaps take it that way.

Does it really make sense to insist that?

If you saw the word “gift” on a German bottle that someone handed to you and you drank it, would you insist you weren’t dying as you were choking or would you recognize the intent was different?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/gift (anyone interested:  click on the image box if you can’t see it, you should be able to see it then if you don’t already know this)

 

Just because we use the exact same word (in terms of appearance) doesn’t mean we mean the exact same meaning.  Languages (dialects, jargon) are funny that way.

Do you think Germans would agree they must be using the English meaning of “gift” when speaking their own language?

I do believe LDS need to be better at communicating what they mean when we teach baptism by authority is needed for a follower of Christ and that we are there to teach the Restored Gospel.  It does not mean you can’t be a follower of Christ before receiving what we believe is the baptism authorized by Christ, it doesn’t even mean you weren’t a good follower of Christ in your own baptism you already received (though some members might foolishly interpret it that way).  It doesn’t mean what you taught and believe had no part in Christ’s Gospel.

It does mean we believe your understanding and covenants and knowledge of Christ’s Gospel are incomplete and Christ desires you to take certain additional steps in your journey along with the ones you have already intended to do.

Of course we may be wrong.  This belief may be a result of misinterpretation of God’s revelation, wishful thinking, or even fraud.  You of course have the right to decide for yourself just as we do to accept these teachings or not.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't interpret those verses in 127 the same as you.  That was definitely the view of the creeds, especially expressed in this section which was written by JS while he was in hiding fearing for his life, pursued by people who professed to be 'Christian' and used upholding the creeds as their justification/excuse for all the evils they committed.  And for sure the use of the label 'Christian' was different back then.  I don't even know that latter-day saints in JS's day thought of themselves as Christian, as it seemed to be mostly applied only to protestants and not even to Catholics in that day.  

But Joseph seemed to look very charitably on other Christians.  (Below are some quotes that I got from one of Dan Peterson's articles)

Those who knew or heard JS speak who weren't latter-day saints also seemed to believe he had a charitable view of them.

Joseph even had other Christian ministers speak to the saints from time to time, and so did BY in salt lake city.

This speech is probably one of JS's most famous, on God's views of people of different religions, or who do not accept the gospel as the LDS church teaches it:

Here's what Dan Peterson says at the end of the article, after he shares quotes from JS:

For sure, we have had seasons or members in the church where we were more judgemental against others who disagreed with us than we are now.  We have our 'worst' just like every other group does.  And we have our 'best' like every other group does as well.  Generally speaking though, despite our theological differences and some of the hard feelings that came out of decades of persecution and harm, we have not made it difficult for non-latter-day saints to be included in the Christian category.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the stuff I posted was the only take. In theological pronouncements the early LDS tended to be absolute but in practice they interacted with and sometimes liked people of other faiths and there was a lot going on. And, of course, a lot of the other churches were making similar categorical statements about the LDS faith leading to damnation and the like. Some of them still are actually.

[Calm]

Bluebell’s post where she put Christian in single quotes (‘Christian’) led to this post, but it is not a direct response to her, but thinking of how she could be interpreted….

LDS use “Christian” in at least two ways.  One meaning the identity, the being part of the Christian community as defined by general society (found in basic dictionaries, iow) and to mean “Christlike”.  I think sometimes we use “Christian” for “Christlike” to make a strong contrast between the ideal Christian behaviour, which is being Christlike, and the reality of the behaviour of Christians.

I think some use “so-called Christian” in the same way, not intending to deny the individual’s place in the community, just claiming they are being a bad example of such a member, failing at following well most, if not all of teachings of the one they perceive as the ultimate leader of the Christian community, Christ.

It would be like calling a kid a “so-called student” when they were a truant all the time. It would not be denying the kid was enrolled and officially a student, just that he wasn’t following the rules of that community that required attendance to class.

I have no clue if some LDS use “so-called Christian” to mean “bad example of a Christian” or “fake Christian”.  Context may give hints, but context is not always provided.  It’s understandable with lack of context of people assume the second.

Someday maybe English will start using color coding of words to differentiate between different definitions of the same word.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Baptism: My take on their position is that they alone have the correct baptism for the remission of sins because they alone possess God's priestly authority to do so. I don't think they would deny that God can forgive sins whenever He wants, though? And can grant grace even to those who are unbaptized? The Catholic Church holds that God can give grace wherever He pleases, even though she considers herself the only Church with the full means of salvation.

God has been forgiving sins for all of existence, whether the authorized faith or authorities have been around to provide baptism.

Since LDS might use Grace differently, I am assuming you mean undeserved help from Christ to become better individuals and if so, yes, God’s acts of grace can occur outside the Restored Church in most LDS’s views in my experience.  
 

Quote

Grace is the divine help or strength extended to us through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the grace of God, everyone who has lived will be resurrected—our spirits will be reunited with our bodies, never again to be separated. Through His grace, the Lord also enables those who live His gospel to repent and be forgiven.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/grace?lang=eng

Some aspects of God’s grace require obedience, obedience that does not always require membership in the Restored Church, but sometimes does (all can choose to be honest, loving, for example).

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Gift of the Holy Spirit: My understanding of their belief is that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) can work with anyone He wants in any capacity He wants, but that confirmation  in their church gives a special relationship to the Holy Spirit. It does not deny the gifts of the Spirit to those who are not confirmed, instead it affirms a special relationship. This could be me looking at their beliefs through my Catholicism, because we believe confirmation adds a special strength to the confirmed. From the catechism:

Yes, the Gift takes everything previously accessible and makes it work on a different level is the way I have chosen to describe it.  Besides saying “constant companionship”, I haven’t seen anything that stuck in my head as unique and even there, it’s only constant if we are worthy and how is that different for any seeker of the Spirit?

Quote

 

Promise of Heaven: My understanding of their view is that you will get there if you want to get there. Their view of the afterlife seems to be quite universalist, with baptism for the dead, etc.

Yes, though some of us have more limited definitions how one “wants”, as in if one is baptized and leaves the faith in this life, it proves they don’t want to be exalted, etc while others like me believe we won’t be able to make the choice of what we want until we are done learning about our options so to speak (meaning about reality and the consequences of every possible choice out there that leads to or away from exaltation) and that doesn’t happen until long, long after death.  I suspect more LDS exist somewhere between those points of the ‘one and done’ version and my far future time for the choice.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Christianity is an individual matter; not a club. It is not a sect with initiatory rites like being a Mason. It is a personally, individually lived relationship with the Savior. Being a (note the individual article) Christian is not a badge someone owns; it is a relationship that someone lives. 

Has anyone of the board or elsewhere said you were wrong to use this for your personal definition of “Christian”?

———

If anyone is wondering about the order of my answers, I often read backwards, even in books, as in read last chapter first.  I like to know where things are headed, but don’t want to miss anything as well. I also go back and reread the thread as ideas about past posts occur to me….so my apologies if you prefer a solid chronological discussion rather than jumping here and there.

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

On 6/7/2026 at 2:47 PM, Navidad said:

Fundamentalist does not designate a religious affiliation, church, or denomination….For example, I am first and foremost a Christian; second, I am an Evangelical by orthodoxy and by orthopraxis within Christianity; and third and finally, I am a Mennonite by church affiliation and identity. Call me any one of the three, and I am fine. Someone can be Mainstream, Fundamentalist, or Evangelical within most Christian denominations and groups….. The three classifications are entirely different from denominational classifications.

I think this is key to my (and perhaps others here) confusion.  When certain critics have come on, I and others have more or less said “you know we are Mormon, what are you?” And they have responded “Evangelical”.  So I have always assumed one definition of the term was in the sense of taxonomy or rank, with Christian being general, Protestant its subcategory, broken down further into Evangelical as a group of denominations and then a specific denomination…though I realized it was also used in another sense as I had heard of those describing themselves as evangelical Catholics.  I assumed that meant a focus of evangelizing, spreading the Good News as they believed it.

This is why it always seemed odd to me you focused so strongly on LDS refusal to accept your baptism as somehow rejecting you as Christian, but you were insistent on refusing the label of Evangelical to those you saw as Fundamentalist.  It seems instead it’s comparable to you refusing to call a frog or a bird a furry animal while no problem calling cats and dogs furry.  And I have been confused because I was thinking you were equivalent to refusing to allow tigers to call themselves felines.

The way Evangelical has been typically used in the past by those claiming the identity has been in the sense of affiliation.  We were LDS, they were Evangelical.  We weren’t Christian because we were LDS, they were Christian because they were Evangelical.  I can’t say whether they meant it that way as belonging to a set of specific denominations with no overlap with other denominations (just as Catholic and Protestant don’t overlap in any chart of Christian denominations I remember), just that is how it came across to me.  I got the impression they could move from one denomination in the Evangelical set to another denomination without losing the label, but if they became LDS, Catholic, or Orthodox (and some others) they would lose it.

It seems (I use “seems” to always allow I may be misinterpreting even if I am confident I am not, just me not liking to make statements for others) you have never used Evangelical that way (taxonomy of denomination) and don’t see it as reasonable if others do?  Am I correct in this?

 

Edited June 14 by Calm

[Calm]

 I had Chat create a religious taxonomy, though it protested as faiths split, borrowed from each other, merged, so not so “tree-like”.

Quote

Domain	Religious Worldview Family	Abrahamic, Dharmic, East Asian, Indigenous, Secular Humanist
Kingdom	Major Religious Tradition	Christianity, Islam, Judaism
Phylum	Branch	Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant
Class	Denomination Family	Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican
Order	Denomination	Southern Baptist, ELCA Lutheran, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Family	Subgroup / Movement	Conservative Baptist, Independent Baptist
Genus	Local Organization / Network	Particular association, synod, conference
Species	Individual Congregation	First Baptist Church of Springfield

I was assuming Evangelical was either above or below Denomination.  I then shared with Chat how you split orders or family rank (maybe any rank) into Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist.  Chat (rightly imo if I understand you) said you were using the three as traits, not ranks.

Edited June 14 by Calm