Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[zerinus]

I don't know if I find this sad or troubling, but anyone who so casually generalizes about a few hundred million evangelical Christians, and gets it wrong, is obviously living in a different ... place.

I don't need to "generalize" anything about anything. Evangelical Protestant theology is well known. It is not a secret.

[KevinG]

That's pretty dang funny. If you knew my church or me the last word you'd be using is "fundamentalist." Is it just association by being Baptist, I wonder? Move along ... nothing to see here.

Yeah that really wasn't fair to you.

[Gervin]

I don't need to "generalize" anything about anything. Evangelical Protestant theology is well known. It is not a secret.

Well, when you said it ( "I am not worried about my sins. I will commit any sin I like, and everything will be all right in the end.") was an EV attitude I took it as a gross generalization. If you claim this as an EV theology, then I'll have to ask for a CFR.

[Gervin]

Yeah that really wasn't fair to you.

I know the name "Baptist" conjures many stereotypes - some probably deserved, but I'm blessed to be in a church that counts a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds and tendencies under one roof. The common bond of the Lord is strong and an incredible equalizer.

[Ares]

Zerinus you must hold the record for judging the righteousness of others in the forum.

You are excused from this thread.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I know the name "Baptist" conjures many stereotypes - some probably deserved, but I'm blessed to be in a church that counts a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds and tendencies under one roof. The common bond of the Lord is strong and an incredible equalizer.

I love Baptists...99% of my family are Baptists. I moved in a month ago to take care of my mother and found my father's ordination certificate from 57 years ago. Now it is framed and hanging under his picture.

[KevinG]

I know the name "Baptist" conjures many stereotypes - some probably deserved, but I'm blessed to be in a church that counts a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds and tendencies under one roof. The common bond of the Lord is strong and an incredible equalizer.

I'm a big fan of the Baptists here in Georgia (near PaPa). They are good to my Mormon kids and respect their belief in Christ.

[Bart Burk]

I don't know folks. Reading this thread is kind of discouraging. I'm Catholic, but ultimately believe those who trust in Christ's promises will be fine. I long ago decided our clubs are helpful if they bring us closer to God. Some folks may grow closer to Christ as Mormons than they would as Methodists, but others might develop a closer relationship to Christ as a Methodist, Lutheran or Catholic. God is drawing everyone closer to Him in his own way and it is hard for us to judge how God is working in individual lives to accomplish His will.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Bart Burk

[mfbukowski]

I don't know folks. Reading this thread is kind of discouraging. I'm Catholic, but ultimately believe those who trust in Christ's promises will be fine. I long ago decided our clubs are helpful if they bring us closer to God. Some folks may grow closer to Christ as Mormons than they would as Methodists, but others might develop a closer relationship to Christ as a Methodist, Lutheran or Catholic. God is drawing everyone closer to Him in his own way and it is hard for us to judge how God is working in individual lives to accomplish His will.

Don't be discouraged. To be honest, I think your attitude is rather advanced for most people. It requires that one understand that God leads us in the way which works best for each of us. Not everyone can understand that.

But of course I think that we are the only church which teaches we will have an opportunity to figure that out on the other side if we don't figure it out here, even if we are doing our best to find the truth here. That's one of the reasons I am Mormon, because I think that is a valid extrapolation of the doctrine. I am not sure any other church even allows for that extrapolation.

[spartacus]

I don't think you quite have a handle on LDS theology. We believe that regardless of church affiliation, it is possible to enter into Exaltation. We believe that God judges us on our willingness, our desire to serve him. It has more to do with learning truth and living it than anything else. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ he paid the price for all to enter into Exaltation. Further, the ordinances that the LDS Church teaches are needed for Exaltation will not be withheld from anyone that has ever lived, from Adam to the last person born on the earth.

I appreciate your full response. My understanding is based on Gospel Principles on Last Judgement the Terrestrial Kingdom p. 272, "These [the people who enter the Terrestrial Kingdom] are they who rejected the gospel on earth but afterward received it in the spirit world." Exaltation seems to only be available to those who are in the Celestial Kingdom bottom p. 275. So if a Christian is taught the missionary lessons and does not accept, then they accept the truth of the LDS Gospel in the afterlife, then they will end up in the Terrestrial K. The Kingdoms are spoken of as all part of "Heaven" but anything below the top of the Celestial seems to be inherently the result of a negative judgement. At the very least, because you are left with no way to further progress. Thus my description as "damnation of eternal non-progression". What you say here, above, seems to be true only for those who are not familiar with the LDS Gospel. I took the context of the quote I "reversed" as assuming familiarity between the two groups.

God does not condemn the Aborigine who never heard of Jesus Christ, his gospel, or even God. Rather he has created a way for each of his children to return to him. Condemning an individual to hell who has never heard of Jesus Christ is not an example of a just, merciful God. It is a false characterization of God.

I agree. I also know many traditional Christian groups and individuals (including EV kinds) that would agree with your statement here.

In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge. There are not many mansions in the Kingdom of God because everyone goes to one place if you accept Jesus. Everyone else gets to burn in hell whether they have heard of Jesus or not. There is so much of the scripture that is ignored in order to retain such a narrow understanding of scripture.

To that I can reverse quote your words, "I don't think you quite have a handle on Evangelical theology." I do not claim to be an expert in EV, but I know plenty of EVs and other traditional Christians (the devout ones at least) that believe in repentance, hold sin very meaningful, and judgement for believer and non-believer as quite existent, and while I know there are plenty who do not seem to have put much thought (nor consideration of what the Bible actually says) into their brash words of "Know Jesus or Know Hell", I know plenty of Christians, and the Bible itself, that believe what you described earlier about God's Mercy and Justice.

Note: the "mansions" metaphor does not translate well to the Tiered Heaven of LDS Theology - the residents can move about freely - room to room, floor to floor in a mansion.

[spartacus]

Do you really want to know?

It's a bunch of tired old ..... stuff..... not worth responding to.

Don't confuse him with the facts- his mind is made up and he knows everything.

mfbukowski,

I apologize if I have wronged you. I cannot say that I know how. I have valued your comments. I still do. So, please, respond if you have time and energy. Thank you

[altersteve]

I don't know folks. Reading this thread is kind of discouraging. I'm Catholic, but ultimately believe those who trust in Christ's promises will be fine. I long ago decided our clubs are helpful if they bring us closer to God. Some folks may grow closer to Christ as Mormons than they would as Methodists, but others might develop a closer relationship to Christ as a Methodist, Lutheran or Catholic. God is drawing everyone closer to Him in his own way and it is hard for us to judge how God is working in individual lives to accomplish His will.

Bingo! Agreed 100%.

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate your full response. My understanding is based on Gospel Principles on Last Judgement the Terrestrial Kingdom p. 272, "These [the people who enter the Terrestrial Kingdom] are they who rejected the gospel on earth but afterward received it in the spirit world." Exaltation seems to only be available to those who are in the Celestial Kingdom bottom p. 275. So if a Christian is taught the missionary lessons and does not accept, then they accept the truth of the LDS Gospel in the afterlife, then they will end up in the Terrestrial K.

The problem here is your literalistic interpretation. What the text says is correct but what you don't understand is that it is speaking about those who have ALREADY BEEN JUDGED by God to have "rejected the gospel on earth"

No one knows another's heart or if they have been deluded by anti-Mormons etc- or even their own church which has told them that Mormonism is of the devil or some other such nonsense.

If the missionaries knock at your door and your minister has told you they have horns and will take you with them to hell- are you likely to invite them in?

There are ministers who do that- literally. I have met some myself.

So in a case like that did those poor folks "reject the gospel"? Of course not! They didn't even know what the gospel was.

If God judges them to have "rejected" it- and what that means is known only to God- then they go to a lesser kingdom.

It's as simple as that. You can't take any of this too literally. And Gospel Principles is NOT the standard works- I think GP is only marginally doctrinal as much as EV's like to slice and dice and dissect it.

It is a manual written to be extremely simple for people who have just joined the church. It is just a class manual- nothing more, nothing less. It is not definitive about anything.

And no, you certainly haven't offended me and I meant you no offense either. It's just that we have been over this all so many times I felt I didn't have time or inclination to respond. At your specific request though, I will if you like- thanks for your enjoying my posts. It's a great compliment.

Edited September 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[spartacus]

Calmoriah, i appreciate your full response as well.

That would depend on what you mean as "babies". Would you consider labeling a freshman at college a baby in relation to a senior or grad student an appropriate or accurate way to describe the relationship?

What is actually taught?

http://www.lds.org/m...family?lang=eng

If one totally equates the spiritual experience to the physical, then "spirit babies" is a valid term, but that equation is not based on any LDS doctrine and is an assumption just like the assumption that women are "spiritually pregnant" when there is nothing that teaches that spiritual birth is the same process as a physical birth.

I agree with your assessment of official doctrine - so it is surely safest to stay with "children". However, and this would be a good thread topic I think, equating spiritual experience with the physical seems to be pretty common in LDS teaching - the very speculation of the existence of a Heavenly Mother is perhaps the most pervasive form of this equating. Also the quote you used speaks of "begotten", "born", "heavenly parents", "reared to maturity" in themselves and altogether strong seem to imply that we started out as baby spirits. Obviously, this is not necessarily true - language has its limits, and these terms can have a different sense when it comes to spirit entities. I just wanted to show how such "assumptions" can easily come about.

There is a significant difference between all the connotations that go along with "babies" and the concept of spiritual development that may have nothing to do with any material change (in the sense of the spirit matter with which we are created) and is more equivalent to acquiring further knowledge and physical growth. Plus there is no doctrine on how spirits are created/organized and there are even those who see becoming God's spirit children is a process of adoption, not anything analogous to physical birth so again using the term "babies" is inappropriate because of its implications, while using children is appropriate.

Agreed, as I said in my last sentence above.

All we know of the growth of our first estate is that we were tested at the time of the Council in Heaven. Is it appropriate to call our spirits prior to that time "spirit babies" and after that "spirit adults"? Somehow I doubt such terms convey the information needed to understand LDS belief and is more confusing than illuminating, a good sign of a bad/inaccurate label.

On the safe side, agreed. Again, though, I think the apparent tendency to equate spiritual experience with physical is not only present among LDS believers, but more so than a simple limitation of human language and experience, and that this might make a great thread.

[Vance]

My understanding is based on Gospel Principles on Last Judgement the Terrestrial Kingdom p. 272, "These [the people who enter the Terrestrial Kingdom] are they who rejected the gospel on earth but afterward received it in the spirit world."

You mean your MISunderstanding.

So if a Christian is taught the missionary lessons and does not accept, then they accept the truth of the LDS Gospel in the afterlife, then they will end up in the Terrestrial K.

Yes, you are misunderstanding.

Did the "Christian" know it was "the Gospel" when they rejected it?

If not, then your conclusion is in error.

[spartacus]

The problem here is your literalistic interpretation. What the text says is correct but what you don't understand is that it is speaking about those who have ALREADY BEEN JUDGED by God to have "rejected the gospel on earth"

No one knows another's heart or if they have been deluded by anti-Mormons etc- or even their own church which has told them that Mormonism is of the devil or some other such nonsense.

If the missionaries knock at your door and your minister has told you they have horns and will take you with them to hell- are you likely to invite them in?

There are ministers who do that- literally. I have met some myself.

So in a case like that did those poor folks "reject the gospel"? Of course not! They didn't even know what the gospel was.

If God judges them to have "rejected" it- and what that means is known only to God- then they go to a lesser kingdom.

It's as simple as that. You can't take any of this too literally. And Gospel Principles is NOT the standard works- I think GP is only marginally doctrinal as much as EV's like to slice and dice and dissect it.

It is a manual written to be extremely simple for people who have just joined the church. It is just a class manual- nothing more, nothing less. It is not definitive about anything.

And no, you certainly haven't offended me and I meant you no offense either. It's just that we have been over this all so many times I felt I didn't have time or inclination to respond. At your specific request though, I will if you like- thanks for your enjoying my posts. It's a great compliment.

I totally agree. This is why we speak of God being the only Judge and knowing the heart and being Just in giving all a "fair chance".

The original quote I reversed I assumed was between two people who know what the other is offering. If we were required to include all reasonable equivocations then the original point and my counter-point would have been worn down a thousand times over.

[mfbukowski]

On the safe side, agreed. Again, though, I think the apparent tendency to equate spiritual experience with physical is not only present among LDS believers, but more so than a simple limitation of human language and experience, and that this might make a great thread.

It's been done, but if you want to start it go ahead. Mormons are closet "Pragmatists" a philosophy begun arguably by William James which is now represented in social constructivism and most broadly in what is known as postmodernism.

Most Mormons don't know that they think that way, but they do. It is a well-established philosophical tradition which essentially says that reality is what humans experience since we can know no other reality, therefore spiritual experience, though subjective, is as "valid" within it's linguistic purpose as science is within its purpose

The question centers on the function of linguistic models and how we model what we experience and the purpose for the models we use.

Spiritual models are not meant to say anything about the world- they are meant to construct a world-view which speak about values and the meaning of life.

Science on the other hand generates linguistic models meant to describe what is universally verifiable in experience- religion speaks only about what is subjective to the individual.

Both express a "reality" or a linguistic model of how the world works but each is designed for its own purpose.

There is an incredibly long thread still sort of running I think about science and religion- you might want to look up some posts on that before starting another thread on what is basically that same topic.

I talk a lot about that on my new website linked below- though right now the posts there are mostly short pieces I have posted here as well. I don't know how well versed you are in philosophy but you might want to hit wikipedia articles on Pragmatism, William James, (especially his Varieties of Religious Experience), Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein's Fideism for a background on these views.

[spartacus]

I see he must have been blocked from this thread, but I was just beginning to like zerinus. Hopefully, you can still read the thread at least. See you on others.

Fair enough. It is a battle; we will see who wins. So far Mormonism seems to be winning, because in spite of all the persecution and misrepresentation by its detractors and enemies, it has gone from strength to strength; but Evangelicalism (and historical Christianity in general) is in decline.

I'm not so sure that the Bible teaches that the Church of believers will be very large in the last days. It is my understanding that the LDS belief is the opposite - that in this last dispensation it will only grow. So it leaves "winning" by "strength to strength" not necessarily a decider.

It is well known that Mormons believe that early Christianity apostatized, which made necessary the Restoration. There is nothing secret about that. After the Protestant Reformation Christendom fragmented into a thousand pieces, of which Evangelicalism is one of the (nastier) fragments. So all of traditional Christianity is basically apostate, but some are more apostate than others. I would put it another way: There is a verse in the Book of Mormon which reads as follows:

Agreed. I simply have never heard an LDS leader nor more than a couple LDS members every really embrace this teaching in public discourse. Again, I find it refreshing.

By Zion in the above scripture is meant the Restored Church; and "whore of all the earth" is euphemism for the church of the devil. What that is basically saying is that anybody who fights against Restored (LDS) Church in the last days is part of the Church of the devil. A lot of Christians (and Christian churches) do that to some extent; but there is no Christian church or institution that does it more pro-actively and vehemently than the Evangelicals do. That puts Evangelical Christianity squarely in the camp of the church of the devil, simple as that. I am sure that does not apply to every single Evangelical. I have no doubt that there are many Evangelicals who are decent people, and to not approve of that kind of thing. They are excluded. But those who do, especially their ministers and activists who are very proactive in this kind of thing, without a doubt are part of the church of the devil. That is what the Book of Mormon teaches.

While I know no where near all here agree with you, perhaps, again, honesty, whether I agree with its content or not, is refreshing.

I said that tongue in cheek. No offence was intended.

I'll take you at your word. I was seeing a lot of ~"you're just sermonizing"~ ~"not reasoning"~ and then this quip against his name. I apologize if my sensitivities got the best of me. But reminders to love are never wasted, I think.

[Calm]

this might make a great thread.

Probably would. My opinion is that in most cases it is a conclusion jumped to without enough evidence.

I believe that Heavenly Mother is not a result of extrapolation of what we know based on spiritual being equated to physical...but as you say, it's a topic for another thread.

[spartacus]

We don't care. That is seen as an attack by Apostate Christianity against the true Chistianity which is Mormonism, therefore we try to defend the true Christianity against it. We do that by reminding you (and anybody else who cares to know) that Evangelicalism is a form of Apostate Christianity, whereas Mormonism is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity.

With some proper noun changes and deletion of "Restoration of the original" this would be the point of traditional Christians to the LDS Church. Irony.

Unless those proper nouns changes are equivalent meanings, I don't see much irony.

Of course.

That z's comment is evidence that each faith community promotes itself as the true faith and discounts others seems hardly ironic it seems to me. Plus there is no denial of the label Christian to those that LDS view as belonging to "Apostate Christianity" while there tends to be on the side of Evangelicals.

But perhaps my irony meter is defective.

I will not presume to diagnose, however, assuming equivalent proper nouns and subjects could be swapped in, I thought it particularly ironic because of the unique debate among LDS/TradChristians about who is and is not "Christian" in which LDS find it so offensive to be declared not Christians and yet traditional Christians would justify this by zerinus' statement "reversed". So if zerinus finds his own statement reasonable then he might at least find the Christian reason (zerinus' reversed) to be reasonable, mistaken and wrong on false premises, but reasonable otherwise.

Perhaps it would be even stronger if we reversed it completely and said that LDS claim traditional Christians to be "Apostate Mormons."

PS: a person belonging to an organization that is part of "Apostate Christianity" can still be called a Christian due to their membership because while there are apostate beliefs, if the church teaches that their members should be following Christ, believing in him, etc.

Yes, that is why I have advocated adjectives in the names - from a traditional Christian's view, LDS are "apostate Christians". And, now that I thought of it above, perhaps I will advocate LDS claiming traditional Christians are "Apostate Mormons". I know this wouldn't work - perhaps "Apostate LDS"? Probably not.

A real life example from this thread is gathered below.

Funny how evangelicals will send me to hell if I do not follow their doctrines but I will provide a way for them to accept the fullness of the gospel through temple work. You will know us by our fruits.

As I have done already on this thread, and find myself doing often on this board (I have even turned down an opportunity or two), I shall point out that this statement could easily be changed to make the same point back to LDS.

For example, "Funny how LDS will send me to the damnation of eternal non-progression in the Terrestrial Kingdom if I do not follow their doctrines and prove worthy to go to and actually go to the temple, but I provide a way for them to accept the merit of Christ alone for return to the Father. You will know us by our fruits."

My point is that such points are inconsequential since they can be made to work equally well for the other group.

[Calm]

I thought it particularly ironic because of the unique debate among LDS/TradChristians about who is and is not "Christian" in which LDS find it so offensive to be declared not Christians and yet traditional Christians would justify this by zerinus' statement "reversed"

Except I don't know any LDS who would have a problem being called an apostate or heretical Christian by a nonLDS in the same way they are offended about being called nonChristian....at least if the nonLDS Christian were using the term as zerinus is doing so. There is a big difference in my view in saying someone is mistaken in their worship of Christ and someone doesn't worship Christ at all.

They are not equivalent statements. zerinus was not saying or implying that nonLDS Christians were not actually Christians. If any nonLDS Christian justified their label of nonChristian with the reverse of zerinus' statement, it would be a misinterpretation of what he was saying, I believe, much like the quotes from lds.org that I posted that used "apostate Christianity" to refer to traditional Christianity but in no way suggested that such weren't Christian faiths.

Perhaps I am missing your point though.

LDS claim traditional Christians to be "Apostate Mormons."

Since traditional Christians did not originally come from faiths whose original source was the LDS faith, this comment makes no sense.

I don't think there would be any big issue if we just decided to call each other "apostate Christians" though I prefer "heretical Christian" more, just rolls off the tongue so nicely.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I totally agree. This is why we speak of God being the only Judge and knowing the heart and being Just in giving all a "fair chance".

The original quote I reversed I assumed was between two people who know what the other is offering. If we were required to include all reasonable equivocations then the original point and my counter-point would have been worn down a thousand times over.

It will be more than a "fair chance". We all will be given every opportunity to accept it or reject it up until the point we make that decision.

[spartacus]

Last one for now, moderators, I promise. This one is pretty well in the thread topic, though, so...

I am curious as to why you are so interested in seeing if other LDS use the term "Apostate Christianity" as zerinus does*****. Surely there is plenty of evidence that LDS teach of an apostasy (often referred to as the "Great Apostasy") occurring within the Christian faith. See for example: http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

"Apostate Christianity" (or more often "an apostate Christianity") is not commonly used (3 examples in 40 years found at lds.org), but does occur on rare occasions among LDS. It does not mean that those organizations that are labeled such have left Christianity (which is why I and probably others prefer not to use it as this use can be confusing since apostasy is usually associated with leaving a faith), but rather that the original Christianity as taught by Christ and his disciples has been altered though not to the point it is unrecognizable as Christianity.

This is all too true. I don't wonder if other LDS use it; obviously it is part of doctrine, but I know they don't use it publicly. "usually associated with leaving a faith" is why I think LDS should use it more. LDS, like yourself, who do not view traditionals that way can use another term. But other LDS of the same view as zerinus should use "apostate Christianity" to more clearly express their view.

Perhaps it is too negative of me, but I suspect that many LDS think of traditional Christians as "apostate" and thus "not true Christians" which is just as good as saying "not Christian". I suspect this because of the way that many LDS and the LDS Church leadership refuse to refer to "Fundamentalist Mormons" as "Fundamentalist Mormons" (Hinckley, I believe, expressed issue with this term), as neither "fundamentalist" but more importantly as not "mormon". They consider FLDS to be "apostate" and thus not deserving of the term "mormon", this is equivalent to zerinus' view of traditional Christians I believe, and it is equivalent to the traditional Christians' view of LDS. Which may be a better explanation of my declaration of irony we spoke of earlier, calmoriah.

I believe the LDS stance toward FLDS and other "LDS denominations" makes the LDS cry of "foul" toward traditional Christians quite ironic.

OTOH, it is silly to ignore those things that we have in common with other Christian faiths; if someone is insisting on doing so because they are concerned that people will be confused and think LDS don't believe their faith is significantly different than other Christian faiths...well, that is silly as well.

As for this other hand, I believe traditional Christians are concerned not with "people... [thinking] LDS don't believe their faith is significantly different than other Christian faiths" but that traditional Christians are concerned about those people, themselves, thinking that the LDS faith, itself, is not significantly different than traditional Christianity.

That is seen as an attack by Apostate Christianity against the true Chistianity which is Mormonism, therefore we try to defend the true Christianity against it. We do that by reminding you (and anybody else who cares to know) that Evangelicalism is a form of Apostate Christianity, whereas Mormonism is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity.

Reverse this quote from the perspective of an LDS to the perspective of a traditional Christian and you have at least one of the main reasons that traditional Christians, including the dreaded EVs, do what they do. If zerinus' reasoning is logical, then so is that of the traditional Christians, including EVs. Then it just becomes a question of whose premises are true...

Some may think this is an obvious point, but I don't see a whole lot of respect from LDS toward Christians who believe that they are doing the right thing by challenging LDS (assuming they do so respectfully). This equivalence of viewpoint, despite the difference of position, should engender some respect (again, assuming other respects given). I think it significant that the intention, on both sides (obviously not among all on each side but a significant number), is the same. At the very least, I think it should result in less LDS being so astounded at the gall of traditional Christians.

[Calm]

This is all too true. I don't wonder if other LDS use it; obviously it is part of doctrine, but I know they don't use it publicly. "usually associated with leaving a faith" is why I think LDS should use it more. LDS, like yourself, who do not view traditionals that way can use another term. But other LDS of the same view as zerinus should use "apostate Christianity" to more clearly express their view.

I think you are misreading zerinus, I believe he uses the term the same way I do and I have never seen an LDS who hasn't (who believes that traditional Christianity is no longer actually Christian). Perhaps I have missed something zerinus has written in the thread though.

Perhaps it is too negative of me, but I suspect that many LDS think of traditional Christians as "apostate" and thus "not true Christians" which is just as good as saying "not Christian".

It is not the same thing at all in meaning though I understand why some may emotionally react to it about the same.

They consider FLDS to be "apostate" and thus not deserving of the term "mormon"

Not quite. "Mormon" has been generally used to refer to specific membership in the LDS Church, it defined that way IIRC in the APA style guide. It is this way in most dictionaries (see for an example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mormon?s=t )The FLDS do not belong to the LDS faith. They do not claim to be LDS either. It is not because they are viewed as apostate, but simply because they are viewed as nonmembers.

If zerinus believes as you say he does, yes it would be ironic. But I think you are wrong in this assumption.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

I think you are misreading zerinus, I believe he uses the term the same way I do and I have never seen an LDS who hasn't (who believes that traditional Christianity is no longer actually Christian). Perhaps I have missed something zerinus has written in the thread though.

It is not the same thing at all in meaning though I understand why some may emotionally react to it about the same.

Not quite. "Mormon" has been generally used to refer to specific membership in the LDS Church, it defined that way IIRC in the APA style guide. It is this way in most dictionaries (see for an example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mormon?s=t )The FLDS do not belong to the LDS faith. They do not claim to be LDS either. It is not because they are viewed as apostate, but simply because they are viewed as nonmembers.

If zerinus believes as you say he does, yes it would be ironic. But I think you are wrong in this assumption.

When traditional Christians are bent on using the word Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormonism from Christianity, one way (and maybe even the most effective way) of dealing with that is to turn the tables on them by informing then that Christianity as a whole is apostate, and therefore what they call Christianity is in fact an apostate version of the original Christianity (which surely is true in some sense at least), whereas Mormonism is a restoration of the original (and hence true) form of Christianity. In the final analysis this may indeed imply that Mormons are the only true Christians around, whereas others are apostate Christians (or not Christians at all); and I don't see a serious problem with that. If it is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of who is a Christian and who is not, or whether Mormons are Christians or not, then so be it. Let Mormonism be true, and all other Christians not be Christians at all, if they really want to play it that way. So no, I don't have a serious problem with the stance that zerinus is taking.

Edited September 12, 2012 by harfad