phaedrus ut Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 That's when it's usually good to explain the difference between a Christian and the true church/body of Christ, explaining how a Christian may be outside of the church/body of Christ and still be a Christian. Christian was a term outsiders used to describe the followers of Jesus. For example, after the death of Judas the remaining 11 Apostles appointed Matthais to replace Judas. These followers lead by James(Brother of Jesus) and Simon Peter referred to themselves was as Nazarenes and also began using the term "the way" to describe themselves(Acts 9:2, & 24:14). In the end it's just an opinion. People can self identify as they wish. Politically I consider myself a conservative but I have relatives that would probably call me a liberal.
Ahab Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Christian was a term outsiders used to describe the followers of Jesus. For example, after the death of Judas the remaining 11 Apostles appointed Matthais to replace Judas. These followers lead by James(Brother of Jesus) and Simon Peter referred to themselves was as Nazarenes and also began using the term "the way" to describe themselves(Acts 9:2, & 24:14).In the end it's just an opinion. People can self identify as they wish. Politically I consider myself a conservative but I have relatives that would probably call me a liberal.That's why I use dictionaries and thesaurases as guidelines rather than just asking random people what they think.The "ian" part of Christian refers to belonging to or being associated with Christ, so regardless of a random opinion, anyone who belongs to or is associated with Christ is a Christian... even if someone else doesn't agree or believe that person belongs to or is associated with Christ.
Tacenda Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I have never heard that before. Your link is about Mormon's being called a cult, not about Mormon's being called Christians. I didn't find anything in the comments, but there are more than I care to read. I wish I could include a quote about LDS not considering themselves Christian in the early church, but think it might have been from BY, that the Christians were ignorant or something. But that's probably coming from an anti. Below is an article that is a modern version of a LDS member in good standing not desiring to call himself a Christian. Maybe this will give clarity a little. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/opinion/im-a-mormon-not-a-christian.html?_r=0 c/p the quote below. "I want to be on record about this. I’m about as genuine a Mormon as you’ll find — a templegoer with a Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a Christian"
Rob Osborn Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 It never ceases to amaze me how most people just believe what others say and do no research on their own to find out for themselves. For instance- not many people east of the Mississippi know the ""Mormons" by their real name- "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". They also think that we are all polygamists.
MiserereNobis Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 1. We believe The Father and the Son are two separate beings both of which have flesh and bones.2. We believe that Lucifer (Satan) is our brother as is Jesus Christ.3. We believe that salvation becomes available to us through works (repentance, faith, baptism, etc)4. We believe that we can become gods ourselves.5. We believe in the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ comparable with the New Testament.Those 5 things are what separate us from mainstream Christianity and why they believe we are not true Christians.As such they believe to be "Christian" you have to believe in-1. The Father and Son are the same being without having any body parts (no flesh, no physical attributes)2. Believe that Lucifer was a creation of God but that he is not a child of God nor is our brother.3. Belief that salvation comes strictly through accepting Jesus words only without repentance, faith, baptism, etc.4. Belief that we will always just be angels to God and that we are thus created with no further capacity to progress.5. Belief that the New Testament is the only correct doctrine of Christ on the earth and that no new revelation has ever been penned as scripture. This is a very simplistic list, especially from the Catholic point-of-view (I can't speak for protestants). Yeah, it can be seen as correct but requires a lot of explanation that is missing in the list. It seems to me that with your list of 5 beliefs required to be "Christian" you are doing what many do to the LDS faith: simplifying to the point of distortion. 2
MiserereNobis Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 They are just still upset about their creeds being abominations and their professors all being corrupt. Hopefully one day they will get over it. Hey Nehor, I've always loved your humor on this board With this post, you do point out something that sometimes my LDS friends miss -- that the creeds I believe in and the priests and bishops and pope I follow were called abominable and corrupt in the first vision. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
Rob Osborn Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 This is a very simplistic list, especially from the Catholic point-of-view (I can't speak for protestants). Yeah, it can be seen as correct but requires a lot of explanation that is missing in the list. It seems to me that with your list of 5 beliefs required to be "Christian" you are doing what many do to the LDS faith: simplifying to the point of distortion. I suppose you are correct but if you ask a Catholic to explain the "trinity" you better have some good migraine pills and a lot of patience. Then, in the end, you are more confused than when you started and may have to be admitted to a psychiatric ward.
3DOP Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Rivers, What is your definition of Christian? If a Christian is one that holds to foundational beliefs about God that have been enshrined in creeds and believed by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox for nearly two thousand years, then no, you aren't Christians. Because many of you guys get very upset at the results arrived at when using this definition, I go by an equally valid definition which allows me to say that you are Christian. It involves recognizing that LDS origins stem from historical Christianity. It recognizes that Mormons accept the historical Gospels and actually have a view of ecclesiology which is much more compatible with the Christian faith than that which is held by Protestant Christians who for no adequate reason, accept creedal definitions about God. Many Evangelicals use a definition of Christian which only allows that those who are saved and on their way to heaven according to their theology, are Christian. Catholics like me are excluded. Mormons like you are excluded. But it doesn't bother me at all, not in the least, if someone who is neither LDS nor Catholic, has a definition of Christian that makes them exclude me. Ultimately, they mostly mean well. I remember my own Protestant days and a similarly restricted view of the way we should use the term, Christian. I think they probably feel that if they were to say you or me that we were Christian, we would rest satisfied in our false churches, and probably go to Hell for accepting a false Gospel. I fear for their souls because of other reasons, but not because they withhold from me the title, Christian. 3DOP 4
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Hey Nehor, I've always loved your humor on this board With this post, you do point out something that sometimes my LDS friends miss -- that the creeds I believe in and the priests and bishops and pope I follow were called abominable and corrupt in the first vision. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?To be fair I do not think the Savior was calling every minister of every other religion corrupt. I wish we had the wording of Joseph's question but I suspect he was referring to local ministers Joseph knew and not to every Christian minister in the world. Creeds being an abomination? We do know Joseph took a strong anti-creedal stance so we take a strong stance there. 3
Flyonthewall Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 It is strange that no two Christian sects are exactly alike, yet are allowed the title "Christian". It is also ironic that our faith was begun because a boy wanted to find the true faith because there were so many preaching different things saying they were right and others were wrong - very confusing for him. When an answer came directly from God, others claimed it was not possible because God no longer speaks to man. The teachings that came of that answer were different than the usual that everyone had come to accept. It is like the game of "telephone", where the original message had been passed along for so long, than when the person who started it gave the original message to someone else, nobody believed him because the message that had been passed along had been changed so much. If a game of telephone lasted 1800 years, you could kind of get the idea of how much it could have changed. In our eyes it is very ironic(some might say offensive) that we are not included in the "Christian" club because we have the original Christian message.
Kenngo1969 Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 "Christyun is as Christyun duz." —"Mah name's Forrest, Forrest Gump"
Kenngo1969 Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 To be fair I do not think the Savior was calling every minister of every other religion corrupt. I wish we had the wording of Joseph's question but I suspect he was referring to local ministers Joseph knew and not to every Christian minister in the world. ...You mean, maybe he asked about "Pastor Jones" and "Reverend Anderson"? That's an intriguing idea.
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 You mean, maybe he asked about "Pastor Jones" and "Reverend Anderson"? That's an intriguing idea. I doubt he asked by name but He may have asked about various sects. In any case the Savior, being omniscient and all, would know what religious leaders he was thinking of and which leaders he was thinking of when he asked. I would not want to be one of them. Apparently they were not good people.
Rivers Posted December 30, 2014 Author Posted December 30, 2014 Maybe we don't even have an accurate recollection of what The Lord said seeing the account was written 18 years after the fact.
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Maybe we don't even have an accurate recollection of what The Lord said seeing the account was written 18 years after the fact.I am going to give God enough credit that he could help Joseph keep his memory of that event strong. If after the fact written accounts of events are judged untrustworthy then we have to toss all four gospels on the garbage heap as unreliable along with most of 1st Nephi which was written towards the end of Nephi's life and much more.
Ahab Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Maybe we don't even have an accurate recollection of what The Lord said seeing the account was written 18 years after the fact.We have the words we have but without the Spirit we can't be assured by God letting us know how to correctly interpret what they mean. Joseph said he was told "those professors" were all corrupt, for example. Who were the "those" and what did he mean by "all corrupt"? Things like that. We need the Spirit when we're playing the telephone game.
pogi Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 “All of the issues raised with respect to biological classification recur in the study of religion and its taxonomic agenda” (Jonathan Z. Smith). I have long held that the field of taxonomy is a crap science. The same is true for religious taxonomy in defining who is Christian. There are no clear delineated boundaries. Others can imagine up arbitrary boundaries and pretend to have taxonomic authority all they want, but it doesn't change what God thinks of me.
Ahab Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 “All of the issues raised with respect to biological classification recur in the study of religion and its taxonomic agenda” (Jonathan Z. Smith). I have long held that the field of taxonomy is a crap science. The same is true for religious taxonomy in defining who is Christian. There are no clear delineated boundaries. Others can imagine up arbitrary boundaries and pretend to have taxonomic authority all they want, but it doesn't change what God thinks of me.The word Christian does mean something definite, linguistically. Some people just choose to disregard the literal meanings and make up their own definitions.
Canadaigua Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 I was in Elder's quorum today and we were discussing Pres. Packers recent confrence address.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/the-reason-for-our-hope?lang=engThe teacher asked why other people don't think Mormons are Christian. People answered by saying things like;"They don't realize we believe in Chirst.""They don't know we believe in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.""They aren't educated about us." (I found this one ironic)Would any members of other Christian faiths like to give their own explanation for why we aren't Christian?Because you believe in a different god (gods in your case) and a different gospel.
Canadaigua Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 ". . . The only people who have gone into theological differences of understanding for the reason they don't consider Mormons Christians that I have encountered have been online on this message board. Every person in real life that has talked to me about it had one of those very simplistic understanding. . ."A majority of Christians do not really understand Mormonism. Couple this with the fact that LDS use the same terms (or similar terms) and define them differently. So it is understandable that most Christians you have spoken with outside this forum "had one of those very simplistic understanding". LDS--especially those who serve missions--learn about Christianity as part of their training (although it is often misrepresented). Contrast this to Christian churches which rarely--if ever--talk about Mormonism during regular services/Sunday School. Some churches may offer lectures about Mormonism but this is usually a separate event--not part of normal services.
Flyonthewall Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Because you believe in a different god (gods in your case) and a different gospel.Tell me, what other gods do we believe in? Name them. I know of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Go on. Name one.
Tacenda Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Tell me, what other gods do we believe in? Name them. I know of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.Go on. Name one.Well some on here believe they are Gods in embryo, if we're being honest. And Pres. Hinckley said we believe in a different Jesus, quite recently.
thesometimesaint Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Well some on here believe they are Gods in embryo, if we're being honest. And Pres. Hinckley said we believe in a different Jesus, quite recently. Jesus said we are Gods. Whether we're talking about Yeshua bar El or Jesus the Son of God. We still talking about the same person. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 A majority of Christians do not really understand Mormonism. This is true, it appears you are amoung them. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Because you believe in a different god (gods in your case) and a different gospel.Good, I would hate to believe in what you believe in. Yours is false.
Recommended Posts