Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Exactly. "One faith one baptism."I guess that means they are all Baptists then, right ? Oh no- wait- what about the sprinklers? Dude, if you were baptized by sprinklers than you *REALLY* need to see your bishop.
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The Best Two Years can be found in many Russian DVD shops. The dubbing was not done by church members, so there is an utterly brilliant moent. "Let's give them a Book of Mormon to make Baptists out of them!"Too funny!!! 1
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Why do many LDS get upset when they hear we have a narrow definition of Christian that doesn't include them?Probably because it denies the reality of our faith where in baptism we take his name upon us and renew this covenant with God every time we partake of the sacrament, something we are taught about even as children.http://www.lds.org/s...-79?lang=eng#74We have made a covenant with the Lord and do not feel it appropriate to deny it by denying we are Christians.http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18.21?lang=eng#20http://www.lds.org/e...pon-me?lang=englds.org is having problems so I have to use the cached version: http://tinyurl.com/ct6uwbp Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I probably worded that poorly. We are not creating a new definition of 'Christian.' No, we're trying to stick to the etymological definition of the greek word, which is 'a follower of Christ.' From there, we apply that definition in a narrow way. The Bible doesn't clearly define Christian, but it has plenty of passages talking about what it means to follow Christ. If we don't believe people with a different gospel are following Christ, why would we call them Christian?I actually generally agree with you on the Trinity point. It is a very important doctrine that impacts a variety of issues, but I don't believe it's foundational in following Christ.Instead of worrying about applying your label to others why don't you worry about how it applies to you? Maybe a little introspective meditation would be in order. 1
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Probably because it denies the reality of our faith where in baptism we take his name upon us and renew this covenant with God every time we partake of the sacrament, something we are taught about even as children.http://www.lds.org/s...-79?lang=eng#74We have made a covenant with the Lord and do not feel it appropriate to deny it by denying we are Christians.http://www.lds.org/s....21?lang=eng#20http://www.lds.org/e...pon-me?lang=englds.org is having problems so I have to use the cached version: http://tinyurl.com/ct6uwbpI can fully understand how these types of conversations can be seen as offensive/upsetting to LDS.Can you (and everyone else in this conversation) understand why though others such as AKboy (and myself) would be concerned about who is included in the term ‘Christian’ and who isn’t.From our perspective you worship a different God, a different Christ and follow a different Gospel. Therefore when you use the name Christian for yourselves, because of our love for our God, Christ and the Gospel, we are usually quick to want to make it known that we do not count you within this group. From our perspective when the LDS take the name Christian for themselves they are rubbing the name of our God and our Christ and our Gospel in the mud because your beliefs about each of these three things dishonour our God.Therefore as we define and use the word ‘Christian’ to refer to ourselves, we therefore do not see it extending to the LDS church, we believe the differences are too great.I’m not saying you don’t have the right to use the term Christian of yourselves – for the moment you have the right to free speech in the US and so you can use whatever term of yourself you want to.Just as I would hope that you guys recognise my right to believe that anyone who holds the beliefs of the LDS church is not a Christian. This is why a certain degree of tolerance is required in any LDS-Evangelical discussion“The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
ERayR Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I can fully understand how these types of conversations can be seen as offensive/upsetting to LDS.Can you (and everyone else in this conversation) understand why though others such as AKboy (and myself) would be concerned about who is included in the term ‘Christian’ and who isn’t.From our perspective you worship a different God, a different Christ and follow a different Gospel. Therefore when you use the name Christian for yourselves, because of our love for our God, Christ and the Gospel, we are usually quick to want to make it known that we do not count you within this group. From our perspective when the LDS take the name Christian for themselves they are rubbing the name of our God and our Christ and our Gospel in the mud because your beliefs about each of these three things dishonour our God.Therefore as we define and use the word ‘Christian’ to refer to ourselves, we therefore do not see it extending to the LDS church, we believe the differences are too great.I’m not saying you don’t have the right to use the term Christian of yourselves – for the moment you have the right to free speech in the US and so you can use whatever term of yourself you want to.Just as I would hope that you guys recognise my right to believe that anyone who holds the beliefs of the LDS church is not a Christian.This is why a certain degree of tolerance is required in any LDS-Evangelical discussion“The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”So from what I read in this post it is you who worship the different God and different Jesus. It is you who have separated yourselves out of Christianity. 1
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Yes, I have always understood why it is an issue for some, including those who believe LDS blaspheme God with our beliefs.All I ask is that when people insist we are not Christian, they explain why so that those who are listening do not jump to conclusions that are faulty and end up causing little old ladies to spit on young men and such things. That they explain that we believe in Christ who was born, lived and died for us and that we believe only through his Name man can be saved and that it is our lack of acceptance of the nonbiblical Creeds that lead some others to deny us the name of Christian though our intent is to follow Christ to the best of our knowledge and faith. Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) From our perspective you worship a different God, a different ChristReally?"14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may athrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may bfeel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the cGod of Israel, and the God of the whole dearth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.; 32 And this is my adoctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear brecord of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the cHoly Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.(3 Nephi 11)That's the Jesus Christ Mormons worship. What Jesus Christ do you worship?and follow a different Gospel.How so? We worship the Father through the Son and follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Is there "another gospel" we are not aware of that we follow? Edited July 31, 2012 by Darren10 1
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Akboy;When I made the case in my #72 post that those who declare that Mormons are not Christian do so on theological grounds and thus does not apply to your stringent application of Christian meaning a "follower of Christ" little did I know that djholmes or anyone else would come along to this very thread and poignantly support my declarative. Check out his #81 post. Especially this:From our perspective you worship a different God, a different Christ and follow a different Gospel. Therefore when you use the name Christian for yourselves, because of our love for our God, Christ and the Gospel, we are usually quick to want to make it known that we do not count you within this group. From our perspective when the LDS take the name Christian for themselves they are rubbing the name of our God and our Christ and our Gospel in the mud because your beliefs about each of these three things dishonour our God.Does that hit a bullseye to my favor or what? Edited July 31, 2012 by Darren10
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Really?"14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may athrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may bfeel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the cGod of Israel, and the God of the whole dearth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.; 32 And this is my adoctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear brecord of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the cHoly Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.(3 Nephi 11)That's the Jesus Christ Mormons worship. What Jesus Christ do you worship?How so? We worship the Father through the Son and follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Is there "another gospel" we are not aware of that we follow?Do you understand the beliefs of Evangelical Christianity?
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 This is why a certain degree of tolerance is required in any LDS-Evangelical discussion“The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”I would most certainly agree that tolerance should be a major part of any interfaith discussions.But if what you mean by tolerance is that LDS should allow Evangelicals to define for them what Christian means in interfaith discussion, I would most definitely disagree. 2
mfbukowski Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I probably worded that poorly. We are not creating a new definition of 'Christian.' No, we're trying to stick to the etymological definition of the greek word, which is 'a follower of Christ.' "Trying to stick" to a definition you cannot and do not understand by your own admission?And you don't think that presents a problem?From there, we apply that definition in a narrow way. From where? From the vague definition you are "trying to stick to" and now you are trying to apply that in a "narrow way"?The Bible doesn't clearly define ChristianAnd you admit that, yet you persist making up your own definition which is vague and you "try" to stick to, but then you restrict it to a "narrow way". Why don't you just see the absurdity here and stop while you're behind?but it has plenty of passages talking about what it means to follow Christ. If we don't believe people with a different gospel are following Christ, why would we call them Christian?And now you totally admit that it is because YOU don't BELIEVE they should be called Christian? Of course we knew that all along didn't we?I actually generally agree with you on the Trinity point. It is a very important doctrine that impacts a variety of issues, but I don't believe it's foundational in following Christ.Ah at last a glimmer of clarity from the Judge of All Things Christian. 3
thesometimesaint Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 http://www.lds.org/languages/LivingChrist/LivingChristEnglish.pdf 1
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I would most certainly agree that tolerance should be a major part of any interfaith discussions.But if what you mean by tolerance is that LDS should allow Evangelicals to define for them what Christian means in interfaith discussion, I would most definitely disagree.That's not what I meant by tolerance, what I mean is that in any interfaith discussion regarding what is 'Christian' we each need to accept that we both have different definitions.As the term Christian comes from the NT such an interfaith discussion that accepted each other’s definitions could then go to the NT and see ‘who’s definition best fits the understanding of what the NT presents as who/what a Christian is’But in order to do that both sides have to be able to accept and understand the others definition. Generally this seems to be where things fall down.
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Do you understand the beliefs of Evangelical Christianity?No. To me they are a mass of confusion.
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 As the term Christian comes from the NT such an interfaith discussion that accepted each other’s definitions could then go to the NT and see ‘who’s definition best fits the understanding of what the NT presents as who/what a Christian is’Since this would depend on each community's interpretation of the NT, somehow I doubt that it would get much farther than agreeing to disagree.LDS generally believe we match the NT Christian community better than any other current Christian community out there, among other reasons, we happen to have apostles.
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Do you understand the beliefs of Evangelical Christianity?Pretty much but your charges were very vague (though as a non-betting man I'd wager that I could give an accurate guess) so I added some specificity. My question to you was not so much as seeking a straight forward answer as it was designed to show the absurdity of your accusation against Mormonism. For the record I've no doubt that you worship the Jesus of the Bible. Edited July 31, 2012 by Darren10
thesometimesaint Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I would suggest that in trying to define the meaning of words we use the dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian 2
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Since this would depend on each community's interpretation of the NT, somehow I doubt that it would get much farther than agreeing to disagree.LDS generally believe we match the NT Christian community better than any other current Christian community out there, among other reasons, we happen to have apostles.Interpretation is key! And yes typically it doesn't get much further than agreeing to disagree, however from my experience the benefit from such discussions isn't usually to the two 'discussers/debaters' but to the people who can see both sides and make a judgement for themselves as to who is more accurately interpreting the meaning of the NT authors.
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I would suggest that in trying to define the meaning of words we use the dictionary.http://dictionary.re...rowse/christianGood advice. Now read my #72 post; 4th paragraph. Edited July 31, 2012 by Darren10
bluebell Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Interpretation is key! And yes typically it doesn't get much further than agreeing to disagree, however from my experience the benefit from such discussions isn't usually to the two 'discussers/debaters' but to the people who can see both sides and make a judgement for themselves as to who is more accurately interpreting the meaning of the NT authors.So, in your view, how does the NT define the word 'Christian'?
Darren10 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 and make a judgement for themselves as to who is more accurately interpreting the meaning of the NT authors.3 Nephi 11 accurately describes the New Testament doctrines, wouldn't you say? 1
Popular Post Deborah Posted July 31, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 31, 2012 From our perspective you worship a different God, a different Christ and follow a different Gospel. Therefore when you use the name Christian for yourselves, because of our love for our God, Christ and the Gospel, we are usually quick to want to make it known that we do not count you within this group.I repeat what I wrote several pages back from Mark 9:38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.40 For he that is not against us is on our part.41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.Obviously Christ doesn't agree with you. 5
mfbukowski Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 No. To me they are a mass of confusion. Gosh I think I have heard that....Oh nevermind
Recommended Posts