LDS want "apostate" Christians to call them Christian

[Hoops22]

An American is a citizen of the US (sorry my Canadian and Mexican friends).

There are many colors and shapes.

They are all Americans.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.

There are many colors and shapes.

They are all Christian.

Bernard

And here is the problem. An American can be a citizen of the U.S., or Mexico, or Canada, or any of the S. American countries.

And you have suppressed "follower" into the question. That has no meaning, therefor, can not serve as a qualifier.

[bluebell]

Joseph Smith was deadset against the changing of the ordinances-- in fact, that's how he described apostasy, was by changing the ordinances.

Here's some information from a relevant article:

It's clear that you and others believe that, for sure. I see little evidence that supports that belief about JS though.

[Mike Reed]

I took you to task for going after me for a message I never intended to convey but which grew out of your own misunderstanding.

Again... you show a lack of accountability. It grew out of your unqualified misstatement.

Which is precisely what I did the moment it became clear to me you had misunderstood.

At which time you ALSO accused me of "cherry-picking", "quote mining", and associated me with anti-Mormons. Not an appropriate tone when you are the one at fault for the misunderstanding.

When I made the initial statement, it never once dawned on me that someone would interpret it to mean "It is not now, nor has it ever been the case that in the history of recorded time any Mormon who has ever lived has ever denied the Christianity of someone based on that person's belief in incorrect doctrine." That would be an absurd position to take. The fact that you immediately ascribed it to me indicates that you weren't really reading for comprehension in the first place.Which is pretty much the point I made at the outset of this thread.

Frankly, I think your qualified position (if I understand it correctly) is equally fallacious. But before we get into this... you answering my questions (in my previous post) first would be helpful.

[Hermes]

Mike and Scott: please take your conversation to private messages.~hermes

[Mike Reed]

Mike and Scott: please take your conversation to private messages.~hermes

Sigh... Ok. {sulking}

Better yet... Scott, lets take this to the forum (which shall not be named) for MADb exiles.

[Hermes]

There's "many" people out there who hate America and Jews, so what. Does that make their "arguments" of why VALID and TRUE? No it does not.

Over and over consig, I see your mind slowly going to the dark side of the force....

we are all aware that you think consig is some sort of apostate. please keep it to yourself from now on.~hermes

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott do you read every thread? Just because it is old hat for you doesn't mean that the poster is intentionally rehashing.

A fair point. So without wishing to get into protracted debate, I will summarize my position in this way:

Christian is a term that, for more than two millenia, has had general application to anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and professes to follow his teachings. It therefore does not do for any person or group to narrowly and arbitrarily define a certain set of dogma as a litmus test to which one must conform to be called a Christian.

Mormon, on the other hand is a term that has long been associated in the public consciousness with the church founded by Joseph Smith, the prophet, and carried forward by his successors in the presidency of the Church from Brigham Young on down to Thomas S. Monson today. It is therefore reasonable for the Church to request that news media outlets and others not confuse the public by applying this term to schismatic or upstart groups that are not formally associated with the Church and that may be guilty of unlawful and, in some cases, murderous behavior.

To me, it is very much an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mike and Scott: please take your conversation to private messages.~hermes

Actually, I've pretty much finished my conversation with Mike.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sigh... Ok. {sulking}

Better yet... Scott, lets take this to the forum (which shall not be named) for MADb exiles.

No thanks. I posted there for a while not too long ago. I can only manage a visit to the spirits in exile about once every eon or so.

[zerinus]

Sure. I was a cradle Catholic and went to a very liberal parish (ward) growing up. In high school, I attended a traditionalist Tridentine rite Catholic parish for about 2 years. I began investigating Mormonism a little over 2 years ago. I joined the LDS Church in Nov. of 2007, but soon left. I was deist/agnostic/apathetic for a while, and then I began learning about the fulness of the Gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. In regards to my current affiliation, I'm a lapsed Catholic, a resigned LDS, and somewhat of a sympathizer with fundamentalist Mormonism. I don't know which group has authority though, but I'd say I lean to the AUB or independent, because I really do think Joseph Musser showed that he understood gospel principles and had true Priesthood.

That was interesting, thank you! It helps explain my initial confusion as to where you were coming from. It also helps me answer your previous question better.

As I've said before, and as my poll thread shows, LDSs have no problem with double standards: They protest persecution, and it being unfair to not get in the Christian club (why they want in it I dont know, I was there for years and life never made sense until I found Mormonism), . . .

Your mistake there is that Christianity is not a â??clubâ?, least of all your â??clubâ?! Being known or identified as a Christian does not translate into joining somebodyâ??s â??clubâ?. It has everything to do with being recognized as followers and disciples of Jesus Christ. Those who like to declare that Mormonism is not Christian are in fact enemies of the Church who want to cast it in a negative light. They want present Christianity as if it were an exclusive â??clubâ? of which only they have the right of membership. Our view is that Christianity is not a club of which they have the right to determine its membership.

. . . and then they turn around and bang the gates on "Mormon" and "Latter-day/Latter Day Saint" and "Brighamite" to those who have kept ALL of God's laws and covenants and ordinances. Not seeing the irony in this is proof that they're just the same as all these Bible thumping Christers who say we don't believe in Jesus. Joseph Smith would have been out of the church so fast if he lived today.

All I can say to that is that you appear to be extremely confused as to the meaning of the Restoration, and who holds the keys of authority of the same in the world today.

zerinus

[Bernard Gui]

Yep. Apostle Moses Thatcher. His statement (delivered in General Conference, btw) was given 14 years before his fallout--his fallout, that is, due to his heroin addiction and trying to take control of the quorum. His history kinda makes Paul H. Dunn's fallout not look all that bad, eh?

You did notice the other quotes I gave, though, right?

Um...how many other Moses Thatcher quotes are you going to pull out? And for what purpose?

He was a fallible man, just like Dunn, and you, and me.

You mean the quotes that prove that we believe we are the true Restored Church of Jesus

Christ and the rest are not? Well, that's news to me. When did we start believing that?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

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.

I used to have the usual naive non-user's view of drug addiction. Then I had to deal

with it on very personal level. Now I have much more empathy for Bro. Thatcher than

I ever would have before.

Bernard

[Mike Reed]

I used to have the usual naive non-user's view of drug addiction. Then I had to deal

with it on very personal level. Now I have much more empathy for Bro. Thatcher than

I ever would have before.

Bernard

I am right there with you man. 15 years sober.

I brought up his addiction because I was responding to your: which I took to mean that you thought my use of his quote (denying the Christianity of others) was inappropriate, due to his fallout. So, I acknowledged the fallout (giving brief details about it, although I was incorrect about saying his addiction was from heroin), stressing that the quote I gave was 14 years before his fallout. And I planned to leave it at that, but then Bsix gave a CFR... so I followed the rules of this forum, and gave him some quotes.

Notice that when I ended that post, I said, "You can start a thread on this, if you'd like. I'd rather not argue about it. Nor do I want to single ou[t] Thatcher any more than has already been done in this thread." The reason I didn't want to single him out was because I, like you, understand what it is like to have a drug addiction.

[Obiwan]

That was inappropriate. I may have been disappointed in consig's statement, but your accusation regarding his testimony is way beyond unacceptable.

I can can recall around 5 significant anti-mormon chestnuts that Consig has embraced as being true or likely.

It's a pattern leading to possible apostasy, so not as "inappropriate" as you may think.

[Obiwan]

I think the proper context would be that Joseph Smith was against changing ordinances unless God Himself wanted them changed. Joseph Smith knew that he did not "own" the ordinances. It was not his place to change them or not. In fact Joseph Smith felt that no mortal man, including himself, should ever change the ordinances, for such a thing was surely apostasy. Much as the change of baptism from immersion, as proscribed by God, and later changed by man.

Practices/Ordainances/Methodology's can "change" in lot's of way's according to need and God's will.

Some of course must essentially stay the same, like Baptism, or they loose their power. Other's, like certain things in the Temple are simply "tools/methodology's", not Doctrine or Eternal Principles, and thus can change and adapt according to need and the spirit.

Principles/Doctrine is what must remain essentially constant, not the fact that methodlogy's change.

For example, lot's of methodology's changed from the Old Testament Law compared to the New Testament Higher Law, but the principles/doctrines etc. have remained constant.

[consiglieri]

I can can recall around 5 significant anti-mormon chestnuts that Consig has embraced as being true or likely.

It's a pattern leading to possible apostasy, so not as "inappropriate" as you may think.

Although the jury is still out on whether Obiwan thinks that Terryl Givens embraces anti-mormon chestnuts, I will quote below some excellent observations from his book, People of Paradox, p. 58, which I referenced in the OP:

After predicating their very existence on the corruption of all other Christian faiths ("I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong"), and asserting their unique claim to be its "only true" embodiment, Latter-day Saints are chagrined when they are excluded from the very community of believers they have just excoriated.

(Givens then lists several pronouncements by various Christian churches that Mormons are not "Christian.")

Latter-day Saints react to such announcements with hurt and shock. Mormon apologists write books in which they respond with an emphatic yes to the rhetorical question, "are Mormons Christian?" or make the case so strongly that they can ask with no small irony, "are Christians Mormon?" This is in some ways curious, since Mormons tend to endorse the view of Jan Shipps, who has written that Mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to Judaism. And this without seeming to realize that, at some point, early Christians stopped being offended when they were no longer considered Jewish."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Bumped in hopes the Givens' quote won't go completely overlooked.

[ttribe]

Bumped in hopes the Givens' quote won't go completely overlooked.

What are you hoping to hear at this point?

[consiglieri]

What are you hoping to hear at this point?

The roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd, maybe.

I posted this because it seemed that some on the thread were thinking that these were my ideas in isolation, and since I had referenced Givens in the OP without quoting him, I brought him down to work this morning so that I could corroborate my accuracy in initially citing to him for this proposition.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

The roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd, maybe.

I posted this because it seemed that some on the thread were thinking that these were my ideas in isolation, and since I had referenced Givens in the OP without quoting him, I brought him down to work this morning so that I could corroborate my accuracy in initially citing to him for this proposition.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Given the way this thread deteriorated, I should think letting it die to be more merciful than trying to prove the point that you are not alone in your theory on why we (as LDS) generally take exception to being excluded from the "Christian Club". Nevertheless, carry on if you feel so inclined. I've had my say on the topic.

[bluebell]

Although the jury is still out on whether Obiwan thinks that Terryl Givens embraces anti-mormon chestnuts, I will quote below some excellent observations from his book, People of Paradox, p. 58, which I referenced in the OP:

This is in some ways curious, since Mormons tend to endorse the view of Jan Shipps, who has written that Mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to Judaism. And this without seeming to realize that, at some point, early Christians stopped being offended when they were no longer considered Jewish."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm wondering in what ways do mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to judaism? There's no evidence given to support the statement, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

From my limited knowledge, i don't see the relationship being the same at all-so some clarification would help.

[emeliza]

I'm wondering in what ways do mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to judaism? There's no evidence given to support the statement, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

From my limited knowledge, i don't see the relationship being the same at all-so some clarification would help.

I think it is just basically an advancement on the religionist views. First came Judaism, then Christianity came and added more. Then way later came Mormons and we add more to Christianity in terms of books and such. Obviously being LDS I believe that we didn't add, but rather restored, however at the same time I believe that, I know in some ways we did add (scripture, the ability to have temples just for ourselves, WoW and so on).

[Notquitewetyet]

I'm wondering in what ways do mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to judaism? There's no evidence given to support the statement, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

From my limited knowledge, i don't see the relationship being the same at all-so some clarification would help.

Judaism of the first century was all trapped in legalism and pointless bickering until Jesus Christ founded his Church and the Seven Sacraments, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. < Catholic belief (roughly)

Christianity of the nineteenth century was trapped in false doctrines and creeds until Joseph Smith was called by God to restore the Priesthood to the earth and the ordinances to exalt mankind. < Mormon belief (roughly)

[zerinus]

Although the jury is still out on whether Obiwan thinks that Terryl Givens embraces anti-mormon chestnuts, I will quote below some excellent observations from his book, People of Paradox, p. 58, which I referenced in the OP:

After predicating their very existence on the corruption of all other Christian faiths ("I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong"), and asserting their unique claim to be its "only true" embodiment, Latter-day Saints are chagrined when they are excluded from the very community of believers they have just excoriated.

(Givens then lists several pronouncements by various Christian churches that Mormons are not "Christian.")

Latter-day Saints react to such announcements with hurt and shock. Mormon apologists write books in which they respond with an emphatic yes to the rhetorical question, "are Mormons Christian?" or make the case so strongly that they can ask with no small irony, "are Christians Mormon?" This is in some ways curious, since Mormons tend to endorse the view of Jan Shipps, who has written that Mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to Judaism. And this without seeming to realize that, at some point, early Christians stopped being offended when they were no longer considered Jewish.

"All the Best!--Consiglieri

Not so excellent. Let us analyze Givensâ?? remarks a bit more carefully. Quote:

After predicating their very existence on the corruption of all other Christian faiths (â??I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrongâ?), and asserting their unique claim to be its â??only trueâ? embodiment, Latter-day Saints are chagrined when they are excluded from the very community of believers they have just excoriated.

There is something fundamentally flawed with that reasoning. It is based on the false assumption the title â??Christianâ? is the exclusive reserve of the false and Apostate churches. Therefore a new church that claims to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ in the world (and all others are wrong) does not have the right to use that title for itself. It has to call itself by some other title!

That would be like somebody manufacturing a new brand of Italian pasta, and claiming it is the only authentic Italian pasta in the world, and all other pastas are not genuine! Then all the other Italian pasta makers banding together and demanding that if he wants to make such a claim for his pasta, then he should not call his product â??Italian pastaâ? at all, but call it by some other name!

Our desire to be identified as Christians does not mean that we want to be â??included as a part of the communityâ? of those apostate churches. It is part of our asserting our identity as the only true Christian church in the world today. â??Christianityâ? is not an exclusive club of which they determine its membership. To be identified as Christian means to be identified as follower and disciple of Jesus Christ, which we claim to be. Quote:

Latter-day Saints react to such announcements with hurt and shock. Mormon apologists write books in which they respond with an emphatic yes to the rhetorical question, "are Mormons Christian?" or make the case so strongly that they can ask with no small irony, "are Christians Mormon?" This is in some ways curious, since Mormons tend to endorse the view of Jan Shipps, who has written that Mormons have the same relationship to Christianity that early Christians had to Judaism. And this without seeming to realize that, at some point, early Christians stopped being offended when they were no longer considered Jewish."

Another flawed argument. Jewishness is partly to do with race. Christianity is to do with a faith. In the ancient church, being a Jew was never a requirement for being a Christian. Those who want to deny LDS the title of Christian do so because they see it as a threat to their own false religions, and that is their way of defending themselves against that perceived threat. Now I donâ??t blame them for perceiving that threat. The threat is genuine. They are right to feel threatened. That is what the Lord Himself has said:

D&C 10

:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but

build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devilâ??yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will

disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center

.

57 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. â?¦

1 Nephi 22

:

22 And the righteous need not fear, for they are those who shall not be confounded. But it is the kingdom of the devil, which shall be built up among the children of men, which kingdom is established among them which are in the fleshâ??

23 For the time speedily shall come that

all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil

are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

But just because they feel that threat, and want to defend themselves against it by calling me not a Christian, that does not mean that I should give in to their demands. I will call myself a Christian, and they can damn themselves any way they like.

zerinus

Bumped in hopes the Givens' quote won't go completely overlooked.

And it wasn't. Did you like my reply?

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Did you like my reply?

zerinus

Yeah.

Especially the last part:

I will call myself a Christian, and they can damn themselves any way they like.

I am thinking maybe some decaff is in order.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri