LDS want "apostate" Christians to call them Christian

[urroner]

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

Offenders For A Word

[Mudcat]

From a somewhat external perspective, I think this is a pretty common paradox found in other groups as well.

I think there are some LDS who could care less what other Christian faiths think of them and are content with being a peculiar people.

Others seem to want to have their cake and eat it to.

The problem is that the cake they can have and the cake they can eat are two different cakes.

Though I am not LDS, I believe LDS... at least as a whole are Christians. I suppose this perception, if accepted generally by the rest of the Christian community would be one of the pieces of cake... the obvious LDS belief in their membership in 'one true Church' that is exclusive of MC and RCC is this other piece of cake they already have.

If at some point the majority of MC and RCC, shifted positions on some things and extended their piece of cake to LDS, would LDS really want to eat it?

The cake that MC would offer, wouldn't agree that the CoJCoLDS is the one true Church. It would simply agree that you are a confused member of the Invisible Church and your accepted as a Christian faith, it would at best be a welcome invitation to the "We are doing the best we can till Christ returns" club.

[Notquitewetyet]

Please, a call for references.

Moses Thatcher was an apostle. He was released from the Quorum of the Twelve. He remained member of the Church and an apostle. He has been describe as being supportive of the Church for the rest of his life. It is claimed by critics that he was treated for pain medication addiction.

1) Please provide a reference to conclusively support the claim that Thatcher was a heroin addict. (Please, not just second hand sensationalism.)

2) More importantly, please provide a refererence that supports your claim that he was dropped from the Quorum due to his heroin addiction and attempts to take control of the Quorum.

I found the following references on this subject:

Political Manifesto (Comprehensive History of the Church)

Wiki: Moses Thatcher

Perhaps a new thread...so as not to derail this one.

Thanks,

Six

From what I understand, since heroin and opiates were legal then, this actually was a rather common problem at the turn of the century, like today (Rush Limbaugh anyone?). This could very well have been a reason why Heber J. Grant began in his administration to really push observance of the Word of Wisdom

[Gervin]

I agree with the OP in seeing the issue. For my own part, I think it's silly and irrelevant. I don't expect other religions to view mine as correct because if they did, then they ought to probably join. I could care less what they call me to be honest, as long as it isn't profane. I refer to the rest of Christianity as "Christians" as often as I mention them at all, so who am I to tell them to recognize me.

IMO, I think it's a waste of time to expect or even try to convince people who are essentially competing with us to be honest about who we are, especially when most of them have grave misconceptions about who we are anyway. We are much better off pleading our own case then asking someone else to do it. And while someone may tell me I am not a Christian, I can simply respond with the fact that I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Creator of the world. I know that He atoned for our sins and that through that act He offers us salvation, and that through His gospel we can receive exaltation. Now whether the other person wants to categorize me as Christian or not is completely up to them. The way I see it, free agency means having the right to be wrong.

I agree with the OP in seeing the issue. For my own part (a Christian - non-LDS), I think it's silly and irrelevant. I don't expect other religions to view mine as correct because if they did, then they ought to probably join. I could care less what they call me to be honest, as long as it isn't profane. I refer to the rest of Christianitythe Latter Day Saints as "Christians" "Latter Day Saints" as often as I mention them at all, so who am I to tell them to recognize me.

IMO, I think it's a waste of time to expect or even try to convince people who are essentially competing with us to be honest about who we are, especially when most of them have grave misconceptions about who we are anyway. We are much better off pleading our own case then asking someone else to do it. And while someone may tell me I am not an apostate Christian, I can simply respond with the fact that I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Creator of the world. I know that He atoned for our sins and that through that act He offers us salvation, and that through His gospel acceptance we can receive exaltation have salvation. Now whether the another belief system person wants to categorize me as an apostate Christian or not is completely up to them. The way I see it, free agency means having the right to be wrong.

[zerinus]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

Not true at all. That is completely the wrong way of looking at it. The LDS Church considers itself to be the only true and living Church of Jesus Christ in the world today. If other (apostate) churches want to declare to the world that we are not in fact Christians, then we think we have the right to declare to the world, equally loudly, that we are indeed Christians. Are you suggesting that the LDS Church should compromise its principles so that apostate churches would be "appeased," and would want to call us Christians? I don't see why we should.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

. Are you suggesting that the LDS Church should compromise its principles so that apostate churches would be "appeased," and would want to call us Christians? I don't see why we should.

zerinus

And yet there are many who see the LDS Church as doing exactly that--compromising its principles so that apostate churches will be "appeased," and would want to call us Christians.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Hmm "many" is a rather dubious and imprecise word. Many compared to what? Those who become members of the Mormon church? Those who don't? Many being more than one and less than ten million?

How many?

I don't know of the Church leadership compromising anything or any principle. And since we have a heirarchy in which our doctrines are established, one could only conclude that the dubious "many" may have gone inactive or changed from the principles of the church in order to be with the "other many" mentioned in Lehi's dream. But that is hardly relevant to the principles of the church as handed down to us by Jesus Christ to our prophets.

[No Touch]

I agree with the OP in seeing the issue. For my own part (a Christian - non-LDS), I think it's silly and irrelevant. I don't expect other religions to view mine as correct because if they did, then they ought to probably join. I could care less what they call me to be honest, as long as it isn't profane. I refer to the rest of Christianitythe Latter Day Saints as "Christians" "Latter Day Saints" as often as I mention them at all, so who am I to tell them to recognize me.

IMO, I think it's a waste of time to expect or even try to convince people who are essentially competing with us to be honest about who we are, especially when most of them have grave misconceptions about who we are anyway. We are much better off pleading our own case then asking someone else to do it. And while someone may tell me I am not an apostate Christian, I can simply respond with the fact that I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Creator of the world. I know that He atoned for our sins and that through that act He offers us salvation, and that through His gospel acceptance we can receive exaltation have salvation. Now whether the another belief system person wants to categorize me as an apostate Christian or not is completely up to them. The way I see it, free agency means having the right to be wrong.

Works for me.

[consiglieri]

I don't know of the Church leadership compromising anything or any principle.

How about when President Hinckley fudged on whether Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Would that count as a "compromise"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

How about when President Hinckley fudged on whether Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Would that count as a "compromise"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That's not a very good characterization of what President Hinckley said and I would think you (of all people) would know better. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed.

[consiglieri]

That's not a very good characterization of what President Hinckley said and I would think you (of all people) would know better. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed.

Sorry to disappoint.

All I am saying is that it is a reasonable take on what President Hinckley said that he was fudging here in order to make Mormonism look more like mainstream Christianity.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

Sorry to disappoint.

All I am saying is that it is a reasonable take on what President Hinckley said that he was fudging here in order to make Mormonism look more like mainstream Christianity.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Clearly I disagree on President Hinckley's motivation for his statement.

[Sentinus]

Clearly I disagree on President Hinckley's motivation for his statement.

Perhaps then you could offer your interpretation of why he glossed over what is clearly a corner stone in LDS theology.

Regards,

Sentinus

Consig, great thread.

[Mike Reed]

Please, a call for references.

Moses Thatcher was an apostle. He was released from the Quorum of the Twelve. He remained member of the Church and an apostle. He has been describe as being supportive of the Church for the rest of his life. It is claimed by critics that he was treated for pain medication addiction.

1) Please provide a reference to conclusively support the claim that Thatcher was a heroin addict. (Please, not just second hand sensationalism.)

2) More importantly, please provide a refererence that supports your claim that he was dropped from the Quorum due to his heroin addiction and attempts to take control of the Quorum.

Second hand sensationalism? Come on... who do you think I am?

I may be mistaken about the drug addiction being from heroine. It appears to have been a morphine addiction instead. Brain fart. Sorry. Glad you made the CFR so I could correct this mistatement.

Edward Leo Lyman, Alien of An Apostle From His Quorum: The Moses Thatcher Case, Dialogue, Vol.18, No.2, p.84 - p.85

Also, some of Thatcher's family had requested a postponement while Thatcher attempted to break his morphine habit. On 16 July John Henry Smith noted that up to the previous evening Thatcher had been over 120 hours without taking any of the narcotic. He had attended Cannon's funeral on 26 July but afterwards his demands for morphine alarmed the family. Their efforts to keep morphine from him "had greatly agitated him." In desperation, concerned friends and family had gathered to discuss forcibly hospitalizing him. Moses Thatcher, Jr., conceded that part of the time Thatcher was insane because of his addiction, and other close associates concurred (J. H. Smith, 16, 26 July 1896).

Letter from Edward Leo Lyman, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.3, p.20

There is no question that, for whatever reasons, Thatcher was an outstanding advocate of separation of Church and state; and I probably should have given more attention to this. However, Miller's statement that Thatcher was influential in securing this provision in the Utah Constitution is untenable: he was absent all but one day of the two weeks when that portion of the state Bill of Rights was being discussed on the floor. Perhaps retaining the unfortunate story of Joseph F. Smith chastising Thatcher's bishop for praying for the dissident apostle's health would have shown in the extreme the hostility and unfairness toward him. As for the drug addiction, it is heavily documented as are admissions of such from friends and family, including Moses, Jr.--regardless of what he said later about fairness of his father's treatment by the Church leaders.

Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, p.311

Thatcher's problems derived from complex causes including acute ulcers, chronic debilitation, morphine addiction, personal disputes with George Q. Cannon, and his erroneous belief that the breakup of political parties signaled a change from church participation to non-intervention in politics. Thatcher also caused problems for himself by taking more interest in business affairs than ecclesiastical responsibilities, skipping meetings of the Twelve and First Presidency during his infrequent periods of relatively good health.15

Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, p.314

From January through March, various members of the Twelve met privately with Thatcher to plead with him to set himself in harmony with his colleagues. Lorenzo Snow implored him at length, but Thatcher refused to relent, becoming angry with those who suggested that he recognize his primary responsibility as an apostle.33 In mid-February Thatcher moved from Logan to a new residence opposite the northwest corner of Temple Square in Salt Lake, but his continued sickness and addiction kept him from meetings, and he frequently had to turn visitors away.34 On rare occasions he was able to receive some callers, including members of the Twelve who administered to him, and Woodruff himself visited on March 16.35

Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, p.317-p.318

As the first presidency and Twelve moved to address the issue, Thatcher continued a personal battle with recurring illness and addiction. His family tried unsuccessfully to hide his morphine, and in July his son told John Henry Smith that the drug rendered him "part of the time insane."46 In late August Thatcher tried to throw off his addiction in a sixty-day program with the Keely Institute. Church leaders greeted the news "cordially," though Woodruff hoped another general conference would not pass without "some action on Brother Thatcher's case."47 The Keely program kept Thatcher occupied through conference. When Woodruff took the pulpit on October 5, he spoke directly about Thatcher's case. Pointing out that Thatcher had not enjoyed fellowship with his quorum since the death of John Taylor, he said that the Twelve had the responsibility of dealing with this problem. No person, he said, could stand in the way of the work, since the Lord would always find a way to further it. The First Presidency and Twelve, he said, wanted Thatcher to repent and unite with them so he might help carry out the work of God.48

Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, p.318-p.319

Perhaps a result of addiction and his return to morphine following the Keely cure, Thatcher seemed unaware of the chasm separating him from his brethren. At a meeting of the First Presidency and Twelve on October 22, Woodruff said that he did not believe Thatcher would ever reconcile himself, and that the apostle's attitude bordered on apostasy.53 Thatcher subsequently asked for a meeting with members of the Twelve.54 The Twelve agreed to convene on November 10 in the Temple Annex, but the meeting never took place.55 Instead Thatcher wrote to Snow asking again for a public trial.56 At a meeting on November 12, the First Presidency and Twelve reconsidered Thatcher's letter, still feeling they might restore harmony. Thatcher refused to meet with them or to reconcile himself to their views, and on November 19 the Twelve again reiterated their decision, dropping Thatcher from the quorum, disfellowshipping him, and publishing their decision in the press.57

Edward Leo Lyman, Alien of An Apostle From His Quorum: The Moses Thatcher Case, Dialogue, Vol.18, No.2, p.86 - p.87

In an extensive series of comments and recollections expressed repeatedly during the fall of 1896, Church leaders, whether in justification or explanation, became more public about Thatcher's offenses. In an anonymous pamphlet authored by Charles W. Penrose (1896), President Wilford Woodruff stated that "ever since the death of President John Taylor, Brother Moses Thatcher had been influenced by an apostate spirit." It had taken Thatcher "about a week to confess [George Q.] Cannon's sins for him, without making any confession whatever for his own; recalling that Cannon at the time had possessed a righteous and forgiving spirit," while Thatcher's spirit had been "of the evil one." Furthermore, Thatcher had been similarly inclined "more or less ever since." One of Woodruff's most telling indictments was that "Thatcher undertook to control the apostles and run things generally and was able for a while to influence two or three of the twelve." Heber J. Grant confessed that he had at one time been "led by Brother Thatcher into a wrong spirit" and that the late Erastus Snow, who himself had previously been similarly inclined, "emphatically warned Moses Thatcher and [Apostle Grant] that unless they repented the spirit they were of would lead them away from the quorum of the apostles." Grant testified that from then on he had avoided Thatcher's critical influence (In Penrose 1896).

I found the following references on this subject:

Political Manifesto (Comprehensive History of the Church)

Wiki: Moses Thatcher

I would recommend reading the sources I quote from above. The first one can be accessed here:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document....15581&REC=7

Perhaps a new thread...so as not to derail this one.

Thanks,

Six

You can start a thread on this, if you'd like. I'd rather not argue about it. Nor do I want to single our Thatcher any more than has already been done in this thread.

[ttribe]

Perhaps then you could offer your interpretation of why he glossed over what is clearly a corner stone in LDS theology.

Regards,

Sentinus

Consig, great thread.

I already covered this ad nauseum in my interactions with Richard Abanes on this board...don't have time to do it again right now.

[Sentinus]

With all due respect, I think that the paradox as presented is somewhat false. The claim that "Mormons are not Christians" is usually made to score a propaganda point. Such a claim is made with the intent of ending the interest of someone of considering Mormonism. Truth is, many who come from a traditional Christian background will not consider another religion unless it is founded on Jesus Christ. Matt Slick owner of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry calls this 'innoculating' members of the flock against Mormonism. (See the innoculating tract here.) His reasoning is that it is easier to prevent someone from ever considering Mormonism than it is to bring them out of Mormonism. Matt Slick makes the classic propaganda argument here: "Is Mormonism Christian?"I consider the claim that "Mormons are not Christians" to be a deliberate oversimplification -- bordering on a lie. Countercultists know that Mormons have a deep and sincere belief in Jesus Christ and his atonement. They know that we cherish and share many of the exact same Christian faith, moral, sacramental, and cultural values as as traditional Christians. However, it suits their polemic purposes to deliberately cast us as non-Christians. It would be vastly more accurate to decry Mormonism as false, or apostate Christianity -- heretics. However, the critics know that to label us as misguided Christianity is to acknowledge our foundation in Christian principle. This leaves the door open to discussing the merits of our form of Christianity. It is much easier to simply avoid such a discussion by declaring that we are categorically not Christians.I have never wished to be identified as a traditional Christian -- nor do I claim to be a traditional Christian. I am a Christian who believes in the atonement of Jesus Christ, in the miracle of his atonement, in the offer of his saving Grace, and in the restoration of his Church.I may be a heretic...or even lost...in the eyes of traditonal Christians, but I am a believer in Jesus Christ.If the critics of Mormonism wish to be honest, they'd stop trying to score propaganda points and tell it like they really see it. Mormonism to them is a false form of Christianity that cannot save. That's their opinion...but at least is is honsetly stated.Regards,Six

Truth is, many who come from a traditional Christian background will not consider another religion unless it is founded on Jesus Christ.

What exactly is wrong with this? Regards,Sentinus

I already covered this ad nauseum in my interactions with Richard Abanes on this board...don't have time to do it again right now.

How about just posting a link here for all to see?Thanks,Sentinus

[ttribe]

How about just posting a link here for all to see?Thanks,Sentinus

Here are the threads: Thread 1, Thread 2

[bluebell]

I could care less whether other Christian churches agree with the theology i believe to be of God. When i desire for other denominations to speak of me as 'Christian' i'm not seeking an edorsement-i'm seeking accuracy.

All i want from them is to acknowledge that i worship Christ, the same Christ that is spoken of in the bible, and believe Him to be the Son of God and the Savior of the world. I want them to understand that i believe that Christ died for my sins, that He and His gospel are the only way to Heaven, and that i don't believe i can work my way to heaven.

If they can acknowledge all of that-and still believe i'm not a Christian, then that's fine. But they had better not purposefully and knowingly describe me as 'non-Christian' to someone who would believe that such a title precludes someone from believing as i do about Christ, or they are bearing false witness against me and my beliefs and will be held accountable (by the only Being who's opinion really matters anyway).

I always strive to use words, when speaking about the beliefs of others, that are not just 'technically' correct in my view but which honestly describe what those people actually believe. Since i'm a fan of the golden rule that Christ put forth, i expect the same treatment by anyone who would label THEMSELVES as followers of Christ as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Never? ...

Should I quote more?

When I said "Mormons," I was referring to the Church as a body. Quote mining (a favorite pastime of anti-Mormons) is inadequate for proving an institutional position. Moreover, most of your cherry-picked quotes don't prove what you think they do. A term like "so-called Christian" does not necessarily deny the Christianity of someone; it may be by way implying that a person is not acting in a Christian manner. Something altogether different.

Also, I said, Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian. That is, we make some allowance for incorrect doctrinal belief in recognizing one's Christianity. Obviously, if you deny core Christian concepts such as the Resurrection and Atonement, that would call your Christianity into question.

Should we also discuss how the Church has recently denied that polygamist Mormons are "Mormon"?

We could. But I think that's beyond the scope of this thread, since it is not comparable.

And it's not like it hasn't been discussed before. Or do you think you are among the first to think you've come up with a "gotcha" on this?

[Mike Reed]

When I said "Mormons," I was referring to the Church as a body.

Quote mining (a favorite pastime of anti-Mormons) is inadequate for proving an institutional position. Moreover, most of your cherry-picked quotes don't prove what you think they do.

Your really get irritable when proven wrong, don't you? Quote Mining, Anti-Mormon, Cherry-Pick? Lighten up bud. It is your own fault, since you didn't make this distinction. You said, "Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian." Last time I checked, all of the quotes I gave came from "Mormons." And almost ALL of the quotes were, in fact, delivered in general conference.

You aren't moving the goal-posts now, are you? Whatever suits your fancy, dude.

A term like "so-called Christian" does not necessarily deny the Christianity of someone; it may be by way implying that a person is not acting in a Christian manner. Something altogether different.

I don't think it is "altogether different". The phrase "so-called Christian" implies that they shouldn't be called Christian. And no... the quotes aren't just condemning them merely for their actions. On the contrary, the majority of the quotes single them out for specific religious beliefs.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your really get irritable when proven wrong, don't you? Quote Mining, Anti-Mormon, Cherry-Pick? Lighten up bud. It is your own fault, since you didn't make this distinction.... You aren't moving the goal-posts now, are you? Whatever suits your fancy, dude.

What I did was to clarify the intended meaning behind an earlier statement. Is a person not allowed to do that in your world? Ever hear the scriptural expression "making a man an offender for a word"?

You said, "Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian." Last time I checked, all of the quotes I gave came from "Mormons." And almost ALL of the quotes were, in fact, delivered in general conference.

I noticed that you had to dig quite a ways back in time for your quote mining. And nothing there reflects an institutional position that an incorrect doctrinal belief automatically invalidates a person's Christianity. Can you show anything that does? Anything comparable to what sectarian anti-Mormons do to Mormons? You have a whole field of official curriculum at your fingertips with lds.org.

I don't think it is "altogether different". The phrase "so-called Christian" implies that they shouldn't be called Christian.

Your own inference is not necessarily the implication.

And no... the quotes aren't just condemning them merely for their actions. On the contrary, the majority of the quotes single them out for specific religious beliefs.

See above about quote mining and institutional position.

[Bsix]

Thanks for the references. I asked, you delivered. Quite the story.

Regards,

Six

[emeliza]

I understand that often other denominations do not believe I am Christian. If they feel that way due to the Trinity and some other doctrinal differences, I am okay with it since they have a more limited view of what the word Christian means than I do. However if they are saying that I do not worship Christ or believe He is my Lord and Savior, I get a bit more irritated.

[Mike Reed]

do you think you are among the first to think you've come up with a "gotcha" on this?

I don't know. Check MADb's archives and see if I was.

I am not sure that it should really matter, though, since I never claimed to be among the first.

Does it matter to you?

Or are you just being irritable, throwing out sarcastic potshots again?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know. Check MADb's archives and see if I was.

I am not sure that it should really matter, though, since I never claimed to be among the first.

Does it matter to you?

Or are you just being irritable, throwing out sarcastic potshots again?

It's just that it gets tiresome revisiting questions that have been raised over and over again with no recognition or cognizance of discourse that has gone on before.