The Grimace Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 While I understand Mr. Hamblin had the right to lock his discussion thread, I disagree that the topic had run it's course. A few conversations were happening that were interesting. Please use this thread to continue.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Thanks but I've pretty much had enough of what others tell me I believe.I'm more concerned with what Christ thinks of my Christianity than all the evangelical scholars in the world put together. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Thanks, Grimace,I was wondering how to reply to selek1, who has been banned and cannot even use the personal message system:Dear selek1,Bill shut down that discussion on Ben Witherington, Christianity, and deification before I got a chance to reply to your inappropriate comments about Rob Bowman in post #184 at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58800-are-mormons-christians-witherington-says-no/page__st__180. .Rob has always behaved as a gentleman on this board, and I consider him a decent, well-educated man who is both sincere and highly motivated in his mission to the Mormons. I had the pleasant opportunity to meet Rob in person recently, and we had a nice conversation. He should be treated the same as we would like to have our LDS missionaries treated wherever they are sent. We should be kind, considerate, and even long-suffering in the face of what might be regarded by some as calumnies against our faith. "All things work together for good to them that love God."I agree with The Grimace that your comments do not reflect the Rob Bowman we know. I was frankly embarrassed by your comments.Bob Smith Edited August 31, 2012 by Robert F. Smith 2
The Grimace Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 BTW, an interesting summary of the debate:http://www.withoutend.org/christianity-or-lack-thereof-mormonism/
Glenn101 Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 In all reality, I don't think that there is really much more that can be said without rehashing ad nauseum the same bits and pieces over and over. And, frankly, it does not matter what the LDS or non-LDS think about the non-issue. There is no one person or group of people on this earth with the authority to or insight to judge whether another person is or is not a Christian. God, the Father is the one with that insight, and He will judge righteously.We get caught up in definitions, in labels. They are minutia. People try to fit the meaning of words to fit their own particular paradigm. Such as the "controversy" over whether Joseph Smith was a martyr because he used a pistol in a vain defense of the lives of himseld and those who were with him.As I noted in another post, Jesus declared how we could recognize His disciples. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." And in another place He said "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."So, ROb Bowman may sincerely feel that Mormons are nt Christians. But he is not the arbiter, nor am I. We are all participants in the Christian drama. When the curtain falls on that drama, we then will face our ultimate critic.Glenn
Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Bob, thank you so much for your gracious comments. I also enjoyed meeting you personally.
Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Glenn,You wrote:So, ROb Bowman may sincerely feel that Mormons are nt Christians.The unqualified statement "Mormons are not Christians" does not adequately represent my stance on the issue. I am more interested in illuminating the issues than in playing tug-of-war over a label.
Saints Alive Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 It seems that in all of these "mormons are / are not christians" threads the common denominator is the definition of who is a Christian. EVs and Mormons have a fundamentally different definition. Mormons are more inclusive and EVs are more exclusive. 2
Tacenda Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I don't know which thread the post was on, hopefully the poster will read this, but what it said was most convincing to me that LDS should consider themselves to be Christian. I use to feel that the label Christian held a certain criteria of belief about God, such as Jesus is God incarnate, and as we all know the LDS don't believe this, therefore I thought we shouldn't call ourselves Christian....back to the post, in it they said something to the affect that somebody that wasn't LDS sent their child some coloring pages of Jesus, can't remember why, maybe because they were sick or injured, anyway then the person that sent over the coloring pages found out the child was LDS, she felt horrible and felt she must apologise because she didn't think LDS believed in Jesus (go figure Jesus is in our name!). This story brought it home to me, that yes we as LDS need to fight for the right to use the label Christian, just so people don't think otherwise like the lady in this story. Edited August 31, 2012 by Tacenda
blueadept Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) It seems that in all of these "mormons are / are not christians" threads the common denominator is the definition of who is a Christian. EVs and Mormons have a fundamentally different definition. Mormons are more inclusive and EVs are more exclusive.Nice try in trying to simplify a complicated topic by looking at the issue through one set of lens. The RCC recognizes the baptisms of many of our EV brethren but not a LDS baptism due to the nature of God thing while LDS do not recognnize anyone else's baptism. Who is being more inclusive in considering them Christian under these parameters? Edited August 31, 2012 by blueadept 1
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I'd asked Rob on the other thread about John 17, and he responded that I needed to go search elsewhere for his comments on it. After doing some googling, and wading through a lot of extraneous material, I still think Rob should summarize his viewpoint here about "being One" rather than referring elsewhere. Just too much to wade through to figure it out, as some of the others affirmed.So Rob, feel free to copy and paste what's applicable, or give me a summary of what you think being one like God and Christ are one really means for us.
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Nice try in trying to simplify a complicated topic by looking at the issue through one set of lens. The RCC recognizes the baptisms of many of our EV brethren but not a LDS baptism due to the nature of God thing while. LDS do not recognnize anyone else's baptism. Who is being more inclusive in considering them Christian under these parameters?Acceptance of baptisms - which, as you know, is an authority issue, nothing else - does not have anything to do with the "you're not Christian" designation.LDS are more inclusive because they consider the individual and their relationship to Christ to be the qualifier, no matter what religious belief they happen to espouse. Many (not all) EVs, on the other hand, along with some Catholics make a corporate, blanket statement that Mormons either as individuals or as a body cannot be Christians. That's very, very exclusive - and frankly, flat out wrong. 1
Zakuska Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I'd asked Rob on the other thread about John 17, and he responded that I needed to go search elsewhere for his comments on it. After doing some googling, and wading through a lot of extraneous material, I still think Rob should summarize his viewpoint here about "being One" rather than referring elsewhere. Just too much to wade through to figure it out, as some of the others affirmed.So Rob, feel free to copy and paste what's applicable, or give me a summary of what you think being one like God and Christ are one really means for us.After reading some of robs explanation of John 17, I can't help but come to the conclusion that he brings in a lot of baggage (presuppositions) into the verse that simply are not stated there and all in an attempt to preserve preconceptions. In other words scriptural iesegesis at its worst.
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Thanks, Grimace,I was wondering how to reply to selek1, who has been banned and cannot even use the personal message system:Bob, while Rob may be a nice guy in person, the site he's heavily involved in is unabashedly ant-Mormon in nature. There's material on the site that is questionable, outright false, and inappropriate.The conundrum with Rob is how we should perceive a person who comes across as nice and a gentleman in their interactions, but who is also heavily involved in something which is displeasing to God. Nice or not, the site Rob is affiliated with preys on people and their general tendency to uncritically believe something negative without researching it out. It seeks to tear down, not to understand. That's what Rob espouses.In fairness to Selek, he recognized that negative side and dealt with it in his own manner. That manner was evidently unacceptable to the mods and others here, but it does not change the fact that there are two sides to Rob, one of which is not particularly uplifting or nice. Nice and gentlemanly or not, he is an anti-Mormon and seeks to actively destroy the faith of Latter-day Saints and lead them away from Christ. We need to keep that first and foremost in front of us in our interactions with him, and not get lulled into feeling comfortable with what he's preaching, just because he's "nice".Or do you see it another way? 2
blueadept Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I've always considered my LDS wife a Christian even with our civil divorce but I respect the viewpoint that some people try to identify who is a Christian by who shares their understanding of the nature of God. I respect that LDS would prefer not to use those guidelines though. Edited August 31, 2012 by blueadept 1
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 After reading some of robs explanation of John 17, I can't help but come to the conclusion that he brings in a lot of baggage (presuppositions) into the verse that simply are not stated there and all in an attempt to preserve preconceptions. In other words scriptural iesegesis at its worst.Still, I'd like to see him summarize that here for us.
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I've always considered my wife a Christian even with our civil divorce but I respect the viewpoint that some people try to identify who is a Christian by who shares their understanding of the nature of God. I respect that LDS would prefer not to use those guidelines though.LDS prefer not to use the criteria of specific shared belief concerning the nature of God, because we also believe that such an arbitrary distinction is displeasing to God.One of the things that I think may happen with such people who make judgments about other people's relationships to Christ based on arbitrary doctrinal criteria is that when they eventually stand in front of God for judgment, He's going to take a look at how they judged the Christianity of other people and judge them in turn. And since their understanding about Him was wrong, they're not going to fare very well.That's why I see it as inherently dangerous and divisive to apply arbitrary doctrinal criteria in determining who is Christian or not. 1
The Grimace Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 Acceptance of baptisms - which, as you know, is an authority issue, nothing else - does not have anything to do with the "you're not Christian" designation.LDS are more inclusive because they consider the individual and their relationship to Christ to be the qualifier, no matter what religious belief they happen to espouse. Many (not all) EVs, on the other hand, along with some Catholics make a corporate, blanket statement that Mormons either as individuals or as a body cannot be Christians. That's very, very exclusive - and frankly, flat out wrong.Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?
Vance Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I think the "Mormons aren't Christians" or "Mormonism is not Christianity" are simply marketing ploys to maintain "customer" loyalty.In a free market of religion, the older "company" with a larger market share, feels threatened by the newer upstart. The newer upstart has a great "product" and is slowly but steadily increasing its market share. After all, it has a superior "product".So, the older "company", driven by fear, is simply using what power it has to implement a marketing ploy to prevent its "customers" for investigating the newer, superior "product". If it had no fear, it would be singing the praises of its "product" and let the market decide with full confidence that newer upstart would fade into obscurity.But the new upstart will continue to increase market share. And as it does so, the "Mormons aren't Christians" will continue to loose it's effectiveness.Because it is NOT true. Edited August 31, 2012 by Vance 1
Zakuska Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?I have no problem with that. Of course I don't go around judging another mans servants on their "Christianness".Romans 14 1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
blueadept Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I think the "Mormons aren't Christians" or "Mormonism is not Christianity" are simply marketing ploys to maintain "customer" loyalty.As long as members of various churches believe they belong to the' Lord's true church', this topic will unfortunately continue to be discussed in regards to who is Christian and who is not
jwhitlock Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?I would say that the corporate method of looking at groups of people and determining whether or not they are Christian is invalid.Being a Christian is an individual trait, and so must be approached on an individual basis.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 The Grimace:Christians? Yes.LDS? Not so much.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?If they believe in Christ the Savior then an unqualified Yes!
zerinus Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?As I have said before, I call anybody who wants to be called a Christian, and thinks he is a Christian, a Christian.
Recommended Posts