It'S Not The Mormon Church!

[MiserereNobis]

Please explain this, http://www.sspx.ca/D...ostacy_pg_2.htm

The Society of Saint Pius X is a hardline traditionalist group of priests whose current status in the Catholic Church is irregular. They are against Vatican II and all that came from it. I think they make some very valid points concerning the problems in the Catholic Church post-Vatican II, yet sometimes go to far (and would be better served if they had normal relations, instead of their current irregular status).

Ecumenism is one of their big issues (along with religious liberty, collegiality of the bishops, and the new liturgy). Is there anything in particular in that webpage you'd like me to explain? There's a lot there (and it's important to note that this is their critique of some of the leaders and theologians in the Catholic Church today).

[MiserereNobis]

Then why personalize it by telling professed believers in Christ, and telling others, that those believers are not Christian. Why not keep it on the level of discussion/debate over doctrines and practices?

Personalizing the argument by denying the Christianity of the believers is what strikes me as childish.

I know the whole "are Mormons Christian" horse has been beaten to death and then beaten some more, so I don't think we should really get into that. What I hope you can understand is that for many people the word "Christian" has a meaning that does not encompass the LDS church. Now, you obviously disagree with their definition, but the point is the definition. Christian, like every word, has to mean something or it becomes, well, meaningless and therefore useless. So, we quibble over what the definition of Christian is. Those who feel strongly that the definition they have is correct are going to use that to determine whether someone is or is not a Christian, regardless of what that person says. If someone who is an American citizen, born and raised, and has no Russian ancestors tells me that he is a Russian, I am not going to accept that statement because it does not fit into the (my) definition of what it means to be a Russian. And if I tell him he is not a Russian, then I am not "personalizing" it or being childish, I am simply asserting my definition of Russian and that he does not correspond to it, despite his own claim.

Now, the discussion of whether or not Mormons are Christian hinges around what the definition of Christian is, which in itself hinges around what doctrines and practices make one a Christian. So ultimately the discussion goes to doctrine and practice, as you say it should.

Obviously there are people of ill-will who say things about the LDS church because of their ill-will. There's little sense in talking to these people. But I hope you can accept that there are also people of good-will, who claim that Mormons are not Christian because they are trying (from their point-of-view) to do good and protect people from what they feel is a major deception. These are the people that you can try to get to change their definition of Christian to include the LDS church. Think of it from the traditional Christian viewpoint: if eternal salvation lies in making the right choice of religion, and the LDS church is the wrong choice, I hope you can see why people of good-will would try to steer others away from the LDS church. Mormons have a little more lee-way in this regard, since there is eternal progression and baptisms for the dead and a chance to repent in the next life. If your theology instead taught that non-Mormons do not have much of a chance at salvation, then you might be more active in steering people away from other churches.

I hope that makes sense why some people argue that Mormons are not Christian. I've tried to keep my own views out of the conversation because I don't feel like getting into it

Pax vobiscum!

[rodheadlee]

I find it humorous that LDS members get so defensive about the "offical" name of the church. As if use of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of the more common term, "the Mormon church," will do anything to persuade non-members that the LDS church is in fact Christian. You do know that there are beliefs and practices within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that form the basis of mainstream Christianity's disdain towards Mormon's calling themselves Christians, and that their disdain is not just over a name, no? Even if "Christian's" can accept that Mormon's believe in the divinity and salvation through Christ, there are a number of theological differences that still remain (namely, large differences in belief regarding the the nature of God, the nature of the godhead, grace vs. works, use of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., etc.) that cannot be fixed by a name change.

If people are really hung up on the name of a particular church, then I expect that all those here who are concerned with the name will now refer to other religions by their full name as well.

The Lutheran church should now be referred to as "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" (the official name of the largest Lutheran body in the USA).

The Episcopal church should now be referred to as the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (the official name of the largest Episcopal body in the USA).

And on and on.....

My post was aimed at the members and the media. They should use the proper name. If the members of other churches use the proper name for their church then I won't be ignorant as to their church's correct name. Our own members have been asked by Jesus Christ to use the proper name of the Church. It has nothing to do with being accepted by other religions or their members as a Chrstian church, that won't happen until Christ comes and claims His own. The media should use the proper name too. It's shoddy reporting to use nicknames no matter what the reason is.

Edited November 1, 2012 by rodheadlee

[volgadon]

If someone who is an American citizen, born and raised, and has no Russian ancestors tells me that he is a Russian, I am not going to accept that statement because it does not fit into the (my) definition of what it means to be a Russian. And if I tell him he is not a Russian, then I am not "personalizing" it or being childish, I am simply asserting my definition of Russian and that he does not correspond to it, despite his own claim.

And yet I am reminded of a scene from a Vladimir Vysotsky movie, my favourite Russian actor and musician. "The Tale of How Tzar Pyoter Married off the Blackamoor" tells the story of an African boy given to Peter the Great, who raised him like a son. The film focuses on how Ibragim Petrovich, the blackamoor, tries to find his place in society. The line I am thinking of goes like this. My face may be that of a blackamoor, but my soul is Russian, or, by my face I am a blackamoor, but by my soul I am Russian.

Ibragim Petrovich Gannibal really did exist, and it is his great-grandson who utterly revolutionised the Russian language, whose poems are known by heart to almost any Russian you could meet. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.

[Scott Lloyd]

My post was aimed at the members and the media. They should use the proper name. If the members of other churches use the proper name for their church then I won't be ignorant as to their church's correct name. Our own members have been asked by Jesus Christ to use the proper name of the Church. It has nothing to do with being accepted by other religions or their members as a Chrstian church, that won't happen until Christ comes and claims His own. The media should use the proper name too. It's shoddy reporting to use nicknames no matter what the reason is.

As a working journalist, I will affirm here that it is a standard of professionalism to refer to entities by their proper names or titles at least once in any report or commentary. Not everybody follows that, but then, not everybody who works in mass media could be regarded as professional, at least not in the traditional sense, especially today, when anyone with computer and Internet access can publish widely.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I know the whole "are Mormons Christian" horbse has been beaten to death and then beaten some more, so I don't think we should really get into that. What I hope you can understand is that for many people the word "Christian" has a meaning that does not encompass the LDS church. Now, you obviously disagree with their definition, but the point is the definition. Christian, like every word, has to mean something or it becomes, well, meaningless and therefore useless. So, we quibble over what the definition of Christian is. Those who feel strongly that the definition they have is correct are going to use that to determine whether someone is or is not a Christian, regardless of what that person says. If someone who is an American citizen, born and raised, and has no Russian ancestors tells me that he is a Russian, I am not going to accept that statement because it does not fit into the (my) definition of what it means to be a Russian. And if I tell him he is not a Russian, then I am not "personalizing" it or being childish, I am simply asserting my definition of Russian and that he does not correspond to it, despite his own claim.

Now, the discussion of whether or not Mormons are Christian hinges around what the definition of Christian is, which in itself hinges around what doctrines and practices make one a Christian. So ultimately the discussion goes to doctrine and practice, as you say it should.

Obviously there are people of ill-will who say things about the LDS church because of their ill-will. There's little sense in talking to these people. But I hope you can accept that there are also people of good-will, who claim that Mormons are not Christian because they are trying (from their point-of-view) to do good and protect people from what they feel is a major deception. These are the people that you can try to get to change their definition of Christian to include the LDS church. Think of it from the traditional Christian viewpoint: if eternal salvation lies in making the right choice of religion, and the LDS church is the wrong choice, I hope you can see why people of good-will would try to steer others away from the LDS church. Mormons have a little more lee-way in this regard, since there is eternal progression and baptisms for the dead and a chance to repent in the next life. If your theology instead taught that non-Mormons do not have much of a chance at salvation, then you might be more active in steering people away from other churches.

I hope that makes sense why some people argue that Mormons are not Christian. I've tried to keep my own views out of the conversation because I don't feel like getting into it

Without agreeing with it, I can see your point.

But I hasten to add that if others endeavor to exclude us from a category by their own custom-made definition, we are within our rights to dispute such exclusionary definition, and furthermore to let our formal title reflect an expression of our stance, and that doing so is neither unreasonable nor childish.

Pax vobiscum!

And peace to you!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd