Jump to content

Offenders for a Word


LDSGuy

Recommended Posts

I just read Offenders for a Word by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks. The book is well written and I would suggest it to everyone. I think its amazing, and the book points this out, that if you simply redefine a word, then you can change the argument. The meaning of Christian has been redefined by many in the "Christian" community so as to exclude other groups who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and the only way to gain Eternal Life. They will say, "You don't believe in the same Jesus as we do; you believe in a different Jesus." Yet they offer no support for this claim. What it comes down to is perception and interpretation.

Many words have been given new or additional meanings as language changes and evolves. However, some definitions have been changed to gain an argumentive advantage. The words gay and tolerance come to mind. Gay, not to long ago, meant happy. Tolerance was a threshold to how much of something one could endure. For example, I tolerate some pain. I don't like pain, but I deal with it from time to time. Tolerance, when we hear it today, is equivalent to with respect. Changing the meaning of words completely changes the game, and sometimes it is all about semantics.

Link to comment

I don't see much point in trying to claim a "word" when the scriptures teach "by their fruits you shall now them".

people will always create their own definition to exclude others. I really don't see the point in trying to "get in good" with a group of people who largely think we LDS are cultist, my feeling at the moment might be best expressed via a J. Golden quote.

Link to comment

I don't see much point in trying to claim a "word" when the scriptures teach "by their fruits you shall now them".

people will always create their own definition to exclude others. I really don't see the point in trying to "get in good" with a group of people who largely think we LDS are cultist, my feeling at the moment might be best expressed via a J. Golden quote.

It seems that its just a problem of the times.

Link to comment

There are no Mormons there?

precisely.

----------------------

LDSguy,

just an hour ago I was listening to the local "christian" radio station, the speaker said "you can never have prophetic revelation to create new doctrine, the Bible takes care of all that [doctrine]"

this statement is most likely directed at the LDS Church or any other Church which claims a Prophet. So if its not the term "christian" it will be something else.

Though, I appreciate the efforts of Elder Oaks and others concerning the use of the term "Christian".

the "christian" world has created their own vocabulary, as vocabulary that goes against common usage of words.

Link to comment

If it was just simply the usage of a group that wanted to be exclusive, it wouldn't matter much because pointing out the inconsistencies wouldn't change their ultimate position even if they accepted the expanded definition. Those who want to truly dialogue won't be so restrictive in their definition and will be at least for the purpose of the discussion comprehend that someone can be Christian while having different perceptions about Christ's role and attributes.

What is important, imo, is to insist on the proper definition in public discourse because this keeps doors open that otherwise might be close among those who are not as restricted in their idea of who is Christian, but who tend to disregard things (ideas, organizations, people) that aren't Christian as relevant to their own lives. I had an Orthodox priest come into the LDS bookstore I was working at in Canada who was surprised to find out we were Mormon since we had all these pictures of Christ on the walls (he was looking for a particular edition of the Bible which we did not carry) as he was under the impression we didn't believe in Christ (as our Saviour). Perhaps learning that LDS were Christian opened his mind to other possibilities of relationships.

It would be interesting to make a study seeing if the perception of LDS as Christian or nonChristian affects one's overall perception of the organization and its people. Are ones with the highest rates of 'dislike Mormons' or 'won't vote for a Mormon' those who perceive us as nonChristian? If we could persuade them otherwise (just on this point, not whether or not our doctrine is heretical in other ways) would their position soften? I would not be surprised in the least to see a significant difference just based on that one understanding or rather misunderstanding. If I am right, it would make life a little easier and more enjoyable overall imo if more people understood that we are Christian in any meaningful usage of the word.

Link to comment

Hehe... Christians are just those who act like Christ.

There are Jewish Christians out there... and Muslim Christians... and Hindu Christians... and Buddhist Christians!

I would even say there are Atheist Christians. :P

To be honest, I think it's time people stop worrying whether others are Christians, when what really matters is if we are Christian ourselves =).

Link to comment

Well, in this day and age with certain things happening, it behooves one to be "politically correct." I try to pay attention to word changes and I try to avoid being offensive, even unintentionally.

I will be 50 years old this year, and I just may get that book in time. Right now I am new to the Church and my focus is on the Gospel. But that book sounds good and it sounds like it's definitely worth reading. So many words have changed.

So much has changed, not just words, and it's good someone decided to write a book like this. I have put the title on my "Book List" folder, and I plan to read it.

Thank you for sharing this. I work with the public and it is often difficult dealing with some folks.

Blessings,

Blossom

Link to comment

I just read Offenders for a Word by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks. The book is well written and I would suggest it to everyone. I think its amazing, and the book points this out, that if you simply redefine a word, then you can change the argument. The meaning of Christian has been redefined by many in the "Christian" community so as to exclude other groups who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and the only way to gain Eternal Life. They will say, "You don't believe in the same Jesus as we do; you believe in a different Jesus." Yet they offer no support for this claim. What it comes down to is perception and interpretation.

Many words have been given new or additional meanings as language changes and evolves. However, some definitions have been changed to gain an argumentive advantage. The words gay and tolerance come to mind. Gay, not to long ago, meant happy. Tolerance was a threshold to how much of something one could endure. For example, I tolerate some pain. I don't like pain, but I deal with it from time to time. Tolerance, when we hear it today, is equivalent to with respect. Changing the meaning of words completely changes the game, and sometimes it is all about semantics.

Hi LDSGuy,

For introduction's sake, I am an Evangelical Christian. I have also read this book and certainly drew the conclusion that what you have stated seemed to be the general direction the authors were going. ..as you seem to be new (btw welcome the forum) you might be excited to know that Dan Peterson is posters on the forum. Actually, my own reading of it was due primarily to my commitment to Dr. Dan that I would.

The whole notion of right/wrong Jesus is complicated it seems. Certainly we can't say all people have a correct understanding of Christ. I would disagree quite vehemently with Jim Jones, for example, except he killed himself and convinced his followers to do likewise... all in the name of "Jesus".

There are some lines that are very stark, as with Jone's case. I can't imagine either one of us would agree that the "Christ" he was preaching would have given such instructions.

But most of the lines aren't quite so clear and quite often, I am a bit uncertain to their necessity. People draw these lines nonetheless.

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Hi LDSGuy,

For introduction's sake, I am an Evangelical Christian. I have also read this book and certainly drew the conclusion that what you have stated seemed to be the general direction the authors were going. ..as you seem to be new (btw welcome the forum) you might be excited to know that Dan Peterson is posters on the forum. Actually, my own reading of it was due primarily to my commitment to Dr. Dan that I would.

The whole notion of right/wrong Jesus is complicated it seems. Certainly we can't say all people have a correct understanding of Christ. I would disagree quite vehemently with Jim Jones, for example, except he killed himself and convinced his followers to do likewise... all in the name of "Jesus".

There are some lines that are very stark, as with Jone's case. I can't imagine either one of us would agree that the "Christ" he was preaching would have given such instructions.

But most of the lines aren't quite so clear and quite often, I am a bit uncertain to their necessity. People draw these lines nonetheless.

Regards,

Mudcat

I am just hoping this is the Jesus I find...

Jesushugging.jpg?o=3

Link to comment

Christ said that his disciples would be known or recognized by their love for one another. Maybe this should be our starting point for identifying who is and who is not a disciple of Jesus Christ (aka. Christian). Then we could go from that point.

Link to comment

I just read Offenders for a Word by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks. The book is well written and I would suggest it to everyone. I think its amazing, and the book points this out, that if you simply redefine a word, then you can change the argument. The meaning of Christian has been redefined by many in the "Christian" community so as to exclude other groups who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and the only way to gain Eternal Life. They will say, "You don't believe in the same Jesus as we do; you believe in a different Jesus." Yet they offer no support for this claim. What it comes down to is perception and interpretation.

Many words have been given new or additional meanings as language changes and evolves. However, some definitions have been changed to gain an argumentive advantage. The words gay and tolerance come to mind. Gay, not to long ago, meant happy. Tolerance was a threshold to how much of something one could endure. For example, I tolerate some pain. I don't like pain, but I deal with it from time to time. Tolerance, when we hear it today, is equivalent to with respect. Changing the meaning of words completely changes the game, and sometimes it is all about semantics.

Yup, we would never, for example, want to change the meaning of the word "translate".

Link to comment

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

translate

TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

http://1828.mshaffer.../word,translate

It seems in this case the Church has continued using one of the older definitions while the world has narrowed the definitions to more or less 2 or them (at least in common usage), one is the biblical reference to translating without death, the other interpretation...and maybe added a few more:

</h2>

<h2 class="me">trans
Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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