Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does Baptism Make You a Christian?


Does baptism make you a Christian?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Please choose the answer that best fits your position

    • I’m LDS and I think a person becomes a Christian when he/she is baptized
      1
    • I’m LDS and I think a person becomes a Christian when he/she has an authentic belief in the person & work of Christ
      13
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think a person becomes a Christian when he/she is baptized
      1
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think a person becomes a Christian when he/she has an authentic belief in the person & work of Christ
      3
    • I’m neither LDS nor Christian
      1


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

........................................Does Mormonism delve much into ecclesiology? What does "church" mean for LDS?

99% of Mormons would respond to your first question with a "What?"  Even Mormons trained to teach in the high school and college level LDS Seminaries and Institutes are unlikely to even use the word, much less deal with the subject academically.  There are Mormons, however, who obtain formal training in theology on their own.  Most of those have no influence at LDS HQ, but they do write on theology a great deal in academic journals and on blogs.

Mormons generally use the term "church" to mean the building in which members gather on Sunday, as well as to refer to the worldwide membership at large.  Some of them actually do know that the Church is also called the Body of Christ** (Apostle Christofferson, for example*), but they do not understand that as a mystical body.  Part of the problem is normative use of the KJV, which can be opaque on some finer theological points (Col 2:9-10, Eph 4:4-16, 1 Cor 12:12-28).  Many Mormons also know that the Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth (D&C 65:2), under the aegis of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

*  Todd Christofferson, "Why the Church," Ensign, Nov 2015, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/why-the-church?lang=eng , " We are the eyes, hands, head, feet, and other members of the body of Christ."

**  LDS New Testament Student Manual, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/1-corinthians/chapter-39-1-corinthians-12-14?lang=eng  ,

Quote

Paul told Church members, “Ye are the body of Christ,” as a reminder that they were to be united as one.

Paul used the analogy of the human body to show how each individual Church member is essential to the entire body of the Church. Paul noted that the human body operates as one whole but is made up of many parts or members, each of which is important. Paul pointed out that the body would not work properly if the whole body were only the eye or the ear.

When people are baptized, they become members of the body of Christ, meaning Christ’s Church. Because each member is given unique offices, duties, and spiritual gifts, each can play an important role in the Church, just as every member of the body is important. 

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Posted
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You can have honest and informed people disagree with your statement. It's fairly caustic to say "if you disagree with me, you're either stupid or dishonest."

Or uninformed.

This book was published nigh on 20 years ago. IMHO, it definitively, once and for all, deals with the issue. Not only have I never seen it refuted, I've never even seen a refutation thereof attempted.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Also, the word "church" in Christianity has multiple meanings, from a building to an organization to a mystical body of believers. Catholicism teaches that the Church of Christ, which is the mystical body of believers united with Our Lord, subsists in the Catholic Church (and only in the Catholic Church), which is the earthly organization.

Does Mormonism delve much into ecclesiology? What does "church" mean for LDS?

Nothing "mystical."

Posted
23 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I believe faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation and Gift of the Holy Ghost are ultimately required to live where God lives.  I also believe, based on my experience, that faith in Jesus Christ can bring about the transformation of a life from sin to a virtuous life without baptism. I see it in our Baptist neighbors also and others, including Five Solas (judging from our conversations.) 

This is true.
Which again brings us back to the question "which definition of CHRISTIAN is being used?"

A believer in Jesus Christ and his atonement could be called a Christian.
A person who enters into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ (through baptism) can also be called Christian.

Both are Christians in their own way, as Meerkat stated, and as we've all witnessed.

Posted
6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the Church's attempts to deny the application of the word "Mormon" to fundamentalist groups, while at the same time insisting that other Christian groups acknowledge the Church as Christian is hypocritical.

I don't think it's hypocritical because the church is applying the same standard to both issues.  The word Christian meant a follower of Christ when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  The word Mormon meant a member of the LDS church when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  

However, i also think that there comes a time when you have to let people self identify and just know that you are not always going to agree with how they do it.  I don't think it's worthy causing contention over.

Posted
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's hypocritical because the church is applying the same standard to both issues.  The word Christian meant a follower of Christ when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  The word Mormon meant a member of the LDS church when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  

However, i also think that there comes a time when you have to let people self identify and just know that you are not always going to agree with how they do it.  I don't think it's worthy causing contention over.

From wiki:

Quote

The terms "Mormon" and "Mormonite" were first used in the 1830s as pejoratives to describe those who followed Joseph Smith and believed in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. The term was soon adopted by Mormons themselves, however, and has lost its generally pejorative status.[7]

 

Posted
32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From wiki:

 

Yes, like I said, it was first used to describe those who followed Joseph Smith and were members of the the church he 'started' (LDS).  I don't see anything wrong with believing that's the only valid definition.  However, now (unlike back then) there are a lot of different groups who claim to follow JS so I don't see anything wrong with them wanting to be called mormons either.  

I just disagree that it's hypocritical for the LDS church to want to stick with the original meaning of both the word Christian and the word Mormon.  

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, like I said, it was first used to describe those who followed Joseph Smith and were members of the the church he 'started' (LDS).  I don't see anything wrong with believing that's the only valid definition.  However, now (unlike back then) there are a lot of different groups who claim to follow JS so I don't see anything wrong with them wanting to be called mormons either.  

Exactly.  There is nothing wrong with calling other Churches Mormon.  Yet some members continue to claim that only the LDS Church is "Mormon.  Which just isn't true.
Mormon is not exclusive to the LDS Church any more.  Any Church claiming to be the Church that Joseph restored and believing in the Book of Mormon has the right to be considered Mormon today.
 

Quote

just disagree that it's hypocritical for the LDS church to want to stick with the original meaning of both the word Christian and the word Mormon.  

I don't think it's hypocritical because the church is applying the same standard to both issues.  The word Christian meant a follower of Christ when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  The word Mormon meant a member of the LDS church when it was invented, so it's valid to stick with that definition.  

The original meaning of the word Mormon (whether as a pejorative or an adopted nickname) is given to those who followed Joseph Smith and believed in the Book of Mormon.
That is not exclusive to the LDS Church so it IS a little hypocritical.

Did the word Christian originally mean follower of Christ and Mormon originally mean member of the LDS Church?  CFR

I think you may be making an unfounded division there.  Did Christian not mean a member of the Christian Church under Peter & Paul when it was first used at Antioch?
And did Mormon first mean a member of the Church, or a follower of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?
Is there evidence that one referred to a mere believer and the other to an organizational member?

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The original meaning of the word Mormon (whether as a pejorative or an adopted nickname) is given to those who followed Joseph Smith and believed in the Book of Mormon.
That is not exclusive to the LDS Church so it IS a little hypocritical.

When the word was invented, the followers of JS and believers in the BOM were exclusively members (or members to be) of the LDS church.  You can't say that when it comes to Christian and members of a specific Christian church.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When the word was invented, the followers of JS and believers in the BOM were exclusively members (or members to be) of the LDS church.  You can't say that when it comes to Christian and members of a specific Christian church.

Are you sure about that?

The first usage of the term Christian was for members of the Christian Church under Peter.  
Seems like a specific Church to me.  (Acts 11, 26 etc).
Did Christ establish a Church during his lifetime or not?

In fact, Wikipedia's blurb on the origins of "Christian" bares a remarkable similarity to the origins of "Mormon".

  • The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

    Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.

    The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;" Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians" and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.

Seems like Christian is a much a pejorative as Mormon in the original usage, and was adopted by early Church members, just like the Mormons did.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When the word was invented, the followers of JS and believers in the BOM were exclusively members (or members to be) of the LDS church.  You can't say that when it comes to Christian and members of a specific Christian church.

And the original LDS church splintered. Several times. With each group claiming authority and believing in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Just like the original Christian church splintered with each group claiming authority and believing in Christ...

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And the original LDS church splintered. Several times. With each group claiming authority and believing in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Just like the original Christian church splintered with each group claiming authority and believing in Christ...

Yes, both religions have splintered, but splintering isn't the issue when it comes to who is a Christian or not, while it is the issue when it comes to who is a Mormon (from the perspective of the LDS church).  

When it comes to Christianity, it's not so much about authority or splintering, it's the Trinity.  Most (probably all) mainstream Christian churches that deny Mormons the use of the label Christian do so for one reason-we don't believe in the Trinity.  Christianity in general has no issues with splinter groups, they are brothers and sisters in Christ (though wrong about some things) as long as they teach the trinity.  If they don't teach the right things, they aren't considered a splinter group at all and that's why they can't be Christian.

Like I said, it's all in the perspective the person has.  To be a hypocrite means that you are holding yourself to a different standard than you are preaching or expect other people to be held to.  I don't believe it's hypocritical to believe that sticking with the original meaning of a word is the acceptable way to define something.  That is not two different standards but one standard being applied equally to all parties.  

People can disagree with that standard (and from a different perspective, it also makes sense to disagree), but believing that something is wrong is a separate issue than believing it is hypocritical.

Posted
35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you sure about that?

The first usage of the term Christian was for members of the Christian Church under Peter.  
Seems like a specific Church to me.  (Acts 11, 26 etc).
Did Christ establish a Church during his lifetime or not?

In fact, Wikipedia's blurb on the origins of "Christian" bares a remarkable similarity to the origins of "Mormon".

  • The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

    Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.

    The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;" Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians" and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.

Seems like Christian is a much a pejorative as Mormon in the original usage, and was adopted by early Church members, just like the Mormons did.

Yes, but not a specific denomination.  

Christian was not first coined to refer to Baptists.  It was not first coined to refer to Lutherans.  It was not first coined to refer to Catholics.  Christian was not first coined to refer to a member of any specific denomination or a follower of the teachings of that specific denomination.  It was coined to refer to those who followed Christ.  Whether everything they believed about Him was true or false was irrelevant to its application.

Mormon was first coined to refer to members of a specific denomination or followers of the teachings of that specific denomination. 

And I'll say again, I understand the perspective that you are coming from and I don't have a problem with it.  What I disagree with is the idea that seeing this from the other perspective is hypocritical.

Posted
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to Christianity, it's not so much about authority or splintering, it's the Trinity.  Most (probably all) mainstream Christian churches that deny Mormons the use of the label Christian do so for one reason-we don't believe in the Trinity.  Christianity in general has no issues with splinter groups, they are brothers and sisters in Christ (though wrong about some things) as long as they teach the trinity.  If they don't teach the right things, they aren't considered a splinter group at all and that's why they can't be Christian.

In my opinion:
IF we can call Methodist, Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons, Unitarians, Greek Orthodox etc etc all as Christians.
THEN we can call LDS, CoC (RLDS), FLDS, AUB, Hedrickites, Bickertonites, etc etc all as Mormons.

To do anything less may or may not be hypocrisy but it is definitely applying a double standard considering the origin of the terms Mormon and Christian.
The LDS Church does not have the only legitimate claim as "Mormons".

Posted
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but not a specific denomination.  

It was coined to refer to those who followed Christ.

Mormon was first coined to refer to members of a specific denomination or followers of the teachings of that specific denomination. 

I respectfully disagree.

Posted
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In my opinion:
IF we can call Methodist, Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons, Unitarians, Greek Orthodox etc etc all as Christians.
THEN we can call LDS, CoC (RLDS), FLDS, AUB, Hedrickites, Bickertonites, etc etc all as Mormons.

To do anything less may or may not be hypocrisy but it is definitely applying a double standard considering the origin of the terms Mormon and Christian.
The LDS Church does not have the only legitimate claim as "Mormons".

I get what you are saying.  You are saying that if we can call Methodist, Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons, Unitarians, Greek Orthodox etc etc followers of Christ then we can call LDS, CoC (RLDS), FLDS, AUB, Hedrickites, Bickertonites, etc etc followers of JS and the Book of Mormon.

From that perspective you aren't wrong.  But, your perspective is not the only one of course.

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, both religions have splintered, but splintering isn't the issue when it comes to who is a Christian or not, while it is the issue when it comes to who is a Mormon (from the perspective of the LDS church).  

When it comes to Christianity, it's not so much about authority or splintering, it's the Trinity.  Most (probably all) mainstream Christian churches that deny Mormons the use of the label Christian do so for one reason-we don't believe in the Trinity.  Christianity in general has no issues with splinter groups, they are brothers and sisters in Christ (though wrong about some things) as long as they teach the trinity.  If they don't teach the right things, they aren't considered a splinter group at all and that's why they can't be Christian.

Like I said, it's all in the perspective the person has.  To be a hypocrite means that you are holding yourself to a different standard than you are preaching or expect other people to be held to.  I don't believe it's hypocritical to believe that sticking with the original meaning of a word is the acceptable way to define something.  That is not two different standards but one standard being applied equally to all parties.  

People can disagree with that standard (and from a different perspective, it also makes sense to disagree), but believing that something is wrong is a separate issue than believing it is hypocritical.

But you are arbitrarily confining the term Mormon to just the faction of the church that followed Brigham Young and later accepted the Manifesto. It originally was applied to all followers of Joseph and believers in the book of Mormon. Just as Christian was originally applied to followers of Christ. 

The fact that the modern church tries to lay sole claim to the word is exactly the same as trinitarians and creedal Christians trying to exclude others. When the term Mormon was first coined, you didn't have to believe in the manifesto and accept the modern Salt Lake church (i.e. you didn't have to accept that the Quorum of the 12 were Smith's rightful successors). In the same way, when the term Christian was first coined, you didn't have to subscribe to the creeds. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But you are arbitrarily confining the term Mormon to just the faction of the church that followed Brigham Young and later accepted the Manifesto. It originally was applied to all followers of Joseph and believers in the book of Mormon. Just as Christian was originally applied to followers of Christ. 

The fact that the modern church tries to lay sole claim to the word is exactly the same as trinitarians and creedal Christians trying to exclude others. When the term Mormon was first coined, you didn't have to believe in the manifesto and accept the modern Salt Lake church (i.e. you didn't have to accept that the Quorum of the 12 were Smith's rightful successors). In the same way, when the term Christian was first coined, you didn't have to subscribe to the creeds. 

I'm not arbitrarily confining the term mormon, I'm confining the term mormon to the denominational sect that it was invented to describe, and suggesting that it doesn't make someone a hypocrite to believe that once a person leaves that denomination, they are no longer Mormon.

If the term Christian had been invented to describe a specific denominational sect, then I would not think it hypocritical if people wanted to limit those known by that label to that denomination.  

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the term Christian had been invented to describe a specific denominational sect, then I would not think it hypocritical if people wanted to limit those known by that label to that denomination.  

It was.  The original Apostolic Christian Church.
Just as Mormon was invented to describe the original LDS Church under Joseph Smith.

And now the other Christian sects that have splintered off have no more right to exclude the LDS Church from the umbrella of Christianity than the LDS Church has the right to exclude the CofC from the umbrella of Mormonism.

Posted
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It was.  The original Apostolic Christian Church.
Just as Mormon was invented to describe the original LDS Church under Joseph Smith.

And now the other Christian sects that have splintered off have no more right to exclude the LDS Church from the umbrella of Christianity than the LDS Church has the right to exclude the CofC from the umbrella of Mormonism.

The Original Apostolic Christian Church was not a denominational sect though.  It's a name that you made up.  

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Original Apostolic Christian Church was not a denominational sect though.  It's a name that you made up.  

The Church established by Christ = the first Christians.
The Church established by Joseph Smith = the first Mormons.

Both are not denominations, but the originals.  Both have splinter groups back to the same originals.  You are describing a difference that doesn't exist.
If the splinters off of Christ's church can be called Christians, then the splinters off of Joseph's church can be called Mormons.
 

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted
53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church established by Christ = the first Christians.
The Church established by Joseph Smith = the first Mormons.

Both are not denominations, but the originals.  Both have splinter groups back to the same originals.  You are describing a difference that doesn't exist.
If the splinters off of Christ's church can be called Christians, then the splinters off of Joseph's church can be called Mormons.
 

I don't agree with those equations.  Both churches were established by Christ.   And LDS is a Christian denomination.  

I think what it boils down to is that from the church's perspective, no Christian denomination 'owns' (for lack of a better term) the label 'Christian' so they can't legitimately decide who can and can't use it.  It can easily be argued though that the LDS church owns the label mormon and therefore does have a right to decide who can use it and who can't.

 

 

Posted
On 2/14/2018 at 6:51 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the Church's attempts to deny the application of the word "Mormon" to fundamentalist groups, while at the same time insisting that other Christian groups acknowledge the Church as Christian is hypocritical.

Thank you for that deeply thoughtful example of how you seek understanding.

It might indeed be "hypocritical" were it not for the fact that you are comparing apples and oranges. The Church doesn't "insist" anything about what "other Christian groups acknowledge;" also, "Christian" is a generic term that is widely used in society and has a widely agreed meaning, namely "follower of Christ." The word "Mormon" is also widely used, and is generally understood to mean "A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The so-called "fundamentalist" groups are not us, and to the extent that their members ever belonged to the Church, are more properly described as "ex-Mormon."

Posted
On 2/14/2018 at 9:50 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But you are arbitrarily confining the term Mormon to just the faction of the church that followed Brigham Young and later accepted the Manifesto.

No, that's not a "faction of the church." There's a faction too much fiction around here. The group that followed Brigham Young and later accepted the Manifesto was and is the Church founded by Joseph Smith, in its entirety. Joseph didn't found some vague, amorphous collection of "followers," but a clearly organized institutional Church.

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...