Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Why would you want to be excluded from being "evangelical Christians"?

I didn't say that, so nice strawman you have there.

We both know there is a difference between "Evangelical" and "evangelical". Although I suspect that you know that the sycophants and sheeple that support IRR wouldn't.

The word evangelical means "of the evangel," that is, of the gospel.

And so it does.

But we both know that "Evangelical" refers to a narrow group of Christians that too often try to exclude other Christians from the whole of Christianity.

Are you saying you're not gospel Christians?

Sorry, but being "gospel Christians" isn't exclusive to the "Evangelical" movement.

Nice try at the word games though.

And just for fun we have this.

"Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century."

http://en.wikipedia..../Evangelicalism

But as usual, when you are loosing an argument you resort to strawmen, and word games.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of the true church?

The LDS Church has authority from God to declare that it is the only true and living Church of God on earth—denominationally speaking. The LDS Church also has authority from God to declare that all those who have genuine faith in Christ (regardless of their denominational affiliations), and seek to live by His precepts, are part of the true Church of Jesus Christ—in a spiritual, non-denominational sense.

Edited October 14, 2011 by zerinus

[Zakuska]

Wade,

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of the true church?

I would say nobody has the authority to speak for anyone else.

Evangelical Christians can and should define themselves as Evangelical Chrisitianity and define what it is to be an evangelical Christian and have their creeds and require assent to said creed to be considered an Evangelical Christian, and continue to say that all other Christians are heretics. Just as easily as Momrons can call them self LDS Christains and require asent to profess JS as a prophet of God.

Think about this... lets take Catherine Aurelia from CARM for an example. She dubs herself a "True Anglican" or a "Continuing Aglican" then she turns around and calls everyone else Apostates because they belong to the Aligcan church who started ordaining Female Clergy, performing Gay and Lesbian weddings etc.

So what really is it that is dividing the two? A difference in Doctrine.

Which is exactly what we are talking about.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

Vance,

Don't worry. I don't exclude the LDS Church from being orthodox for failing to believe in forensic justification or even sola scriptura, but for much more basic, fundamental doctrinal deviations.

The problem is that your "orthodox" was defined by 4th Century apostates (unless you are Catholic, they would be considered apostates). So again, it would be simply distinguishing between "Evangelical" (or since your recent word games pick a specific sect, say "Baptist" for example) and "non-Evangelical" (or Baptist) Christian, and not between "Christian" and "non-Christian".

I have a somewhat more stringent standard than you do.

Sure you do. It is a DOUBLE standard, but a very "stringent" one.

Doctoring the NT to support one's claim to be a prophet of God and other false doctrines is sufficient for me to reject that founder's sect as not authentically Christian.

So, it has NOTHING to do with Christ but rather your opinion. We have pretty much known this for some time.

That's big of you, but I would deny them that title.

It isn't hard for me to reject narrow-minded bigotry in an effort to avoid needless contention and strife among my fellow Christians.

Call me narrow-minded, . . .

Well, if the shoe fits, do wear it proudly.

. . . but a church that claims to believe in Christ but denies his deity is in my view not a genuine Christian church.

But they are a Christian church just the same.

[Deborah]

Here you go: a comparison of the KJV with the JST. The latter, by the way, is a doctored version of the former.

"Doctored". Hardly. You can say the KJV is a doctored version of the original scrolls with that analogy.

[JAHS]

JAHS,

Oh, you were so close! Here is the correct reading:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said uNtO Paul, almosT thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN."

So there you have it. Simply because of diferent interpretations of the Bible. Who's to say is right?

[Vance]

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of the true church?

Not exactly a consistent question.

Here let me fix it for you.

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of Christianity?

There, now it is consistent. And the answer would be, no.

And we don't try to deny you the title of Christian, now do we?

As an aside, we do have authority from Christ to declare "the only true and living church", and you are NOT a part of it so no, you can't use the title Latter-Day Saint.

[Vance]

"Doctored". Hardly. You can say the KJV is a doctored version of the original scrolls with that analogy.

Now now, Deborah.

He was hoping you wouldn't notice that he was applying a double standard. Again.

[Vance]

So there you have it. Simply because of diferent interpretations of the Bible. Who's to say is right?

According to Bowman, someone who has read it. I guess that means you and me.

[KevinG]

Where does your authority to judge who is a Christian come from?

God.

I've started a new thread to discuss the topic of who has the authority to judge who is Christian and who isn't. Here Got Authority?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

The previously expressed principle applies to us as well as to you. In terms of inter-faith discourse, we only have the authority to speak for ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have a news flash for you, Wade: Evangelicals don't claim to speak for Mormons.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

"Doctored". Hardly. You can say the KJV is a doctored version of the original scrolls with that analogy.

That's absurd. There is no comparison between what the KJV does (renders the extant Greek and Hebrew texts into English as accurately as the translators could) and what the JST does (rewrites whole statements and even adds whole sections of material with no textual basis whatsoever, in order to do things like manufacture a "prophecy" of the coming of Joseph Smith).

[KevinG]

Wade,

You wrote:

I have a news flash for you, Wade: Evangelicals don't claim to speak for Mormons.

Your claim counter to LDS claims that we are Christian does not help your claim.

[Rob Bowman]

Zak,

Nice to hear from you.

I don't understand why evangelicals should feel shy about denying that Mormons are "Christians" based on evangelical theology while Mormons need not feel shy about claiming that only the LDS Church is a true "church" based on its theology. Why should we feel obliged to qualify the term Christians (evangelical Christians, LDS Christians, etc.) while Mormons need not feel obliged to qualify the term church (evangelical church, Restoration church, etc.) instead of claiming, as they do, that theirs is the only true church, period?

I would say nobody has the authority to speak for anyone else.

Evangelical Christians can and should define themselves as Evangelical Chrisitianity and define what it is to be an evangelical Christian and have their creeds and require assent to said creed to be considered an Evangelical Christian, and continue to say that all other Christians are heretics. Just as easily as Momrons can call them self LDS Christains and require asent to profess JS as a prophet of God.

Think about this... lets take Catherine Aurelia from CARM for an example. She dubs herself a "True Anglican" or a "Continuing Aglican" then she turns around and calls everyone else Apostates because they belong to the Aligcan church who started ordaining Female Clergy, performing Gay and Lesbian weddings etc.

So what really is it that is dividing the two? A difference in Doctrine.

Which is exactly what we are talking about.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[zerinus]

I have a news flash for you, Wade: Evangelicals don't claim to speak for Mormons.

Mormons don't claim to speak for Evans either. The LDS Church, however, does claim to speak for God, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation.

[Vance]

Wade,

You wrote:

I have a news flash for you, Wade: Evangelicals don't claim to speak for Mormons.

Evangelical anti-Mormons do it all the time. They tell us what it is that we believe quite often.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

JAHS,

Oh, you were so close! Here is the correct reading:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said uNtO Paul, almosT thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN."

That is funny.

You should bring this up at your conference for giggles.

[wenglund]

I have a news flash for you, Wade: Evangelicals don't claim to speak for Mormons.

My experience with certain Evangelicals over several decades suggests otherwise.

However, if or when it may happen in the future, as well as if or when they may presume to speak for Christianity in general, I will be sure to quote to them what you said. In fact, do you mind if I add your statement to my signature line (along with a bracketed addendum about Evangelicals not speaking for all of Christianity)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2011 by wenglund

[Vance]

I don't understand why evangelicals should feel shy about denying that Mormons are "Christians" based on evangelical theology . . .

Because you DON'T and CAN'T speak for Christianity or all Christians. You can speak for "Evangelical Christians", so don't be shy about denying that we (LDS) are "Evangelical Christians".

while Mormons need not feel shy about claiming that only the LDS Church is a true "church" based on its theology.

Yes, we can speak for "the only true and living Church" because we ARE "the only true and living Church". We don't speak for all of Christianity because we are not all of Christianity.

Why should we feel obliged to qualify the term Christians (evangelical Christians, LDS Christians, etc.) while Mormons need not feel obliged to qualify the term church (evangelical church, Restoration church, etc.) instead of claiming, as they do, that theirs is the only true church, period?

See above.

[wenglund]

I don't understand why evangelicals should feel shy about denying that Mormons are "Christians" based on evangelical theology while Mormons need not feel shy about claiming that only the LDS Church is a true "church" based on its theology.

As previously explained, within inter-faith discourse/debate, such declaration are meaningless and counterproductive. If Evangelicals wish not to be shy about being meaningless and counterproductive, that is their choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

As previously explained, within inter-faith discourse/debate, such declaration are meaningless and counterproductive. If Evangelicals wish not to be shy about being meaningless and counterproductive, that is their choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps we should not enlighten them. Having a bunch of closed-minded bigots running around making themselves look foolish can only be helpful to our cause. The fact that they don't know that they come across as closed-minded bigots is also helpful.

Just sayin.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Are you saying that it is meaningless and counterproductive for the LDS Church to claim to be the only true church?

As previously explained, within inter-faith discourse/debate, such declaration are meaningless and counterproductive. If Evangelicals wish not to be shy about being meaningless and counterproductive, that is their choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Wade,

Are you saying that it is meaningless and counterproductive for the LDS Church to claim to be the only true church?

WOW!!

Talk about non sequitur.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Your suggested bracketed insertion confirms my fear that you wish to use my statement to assert something other than what I meant.

My experience with certain Evangelicals over several decades suggests otherwise.

However, if or when it may happen in the future, as well as if or when they may presume to speak for Christianity in general, I will be sure to quote to them what you said. In fact, do you mind if I add your statement to my signature line (along with a bracketed addendum about Evangelicals not speaking for all of Christianity)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

Wade,

Are you saying that it is meaningless and counterproductive for the LDS Church to claim to be the only true church?

Rob I don't really see a big difference between the LDS church claiming to be the "only true church". And Evangelical churchs claiming every one else are heretics. If each church wasn't claiming this there would be no division.

All the schims that have happend through out history from the time of Christ has been caused by the exact same thing. One group thinks another group is heretical so they begin drawing on screipture to define who they are and what is heretical and thus we end up with all the divisions. It was happening in pretty much every church Paul was writting to.

I think we all would do better to read Romans 14 again and see how much importance Paul put on preceived differences of Christian practice.

Now some doctrinal issues are directly addressed by the Bible and the Lord.

Revelation 2:15

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Revelation 2:24

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

Revelation 2:14

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

So perhaps we would do well to see what these doctrines are that the Lord is warning us about and try and steer clear of them.

I also mentioned 1 John and some doctrines which set one out as AntiChrist. I actually think that might be Johns attempt to define Judaisms rejection that Jesus was the promised Messiah as an orthodox view. So people who say the Messiah hasn't come yet would be disqualified.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Zakuska