are we considered christian?

[Arlon James]

I've seen this same issue played out at least 8-10 times now on different threads. Interestingly enough I've seen sr1030 on, I think, all of them. I admire your sticktoitiveness [sp?] sr. I suppose my question would be, does Jesus even care about this? Not to derail, but after reading this thread it's gotten me to the point (again) where I wonder if this is not the 'house divided' spoken of in scripture?

Arlon

edit: I voted 'doesn't matter' becuase I agree with sr when he points out that niether Protestants nor LDS need eachother's permission to call themselves 'Christian'.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Arlon, I think you're probably right. Christ cares what is in our hearts, not whether someone else considers us Christian. As I said, I'm tired of having people assume I'm somewhere between a Muslim and a Scientologist because their pastor told them I don't believe in Christ.

[sr1030]

johnny: Let me see if I have this straight. We believe that mainstream Christianity is wrong doctrinally, so that justifies your telling people that we only accept "the historical person of Christ," but we don't believe He is our Savior.

Who says that you don't believe Christ is your Savior? I don't say that and don't know anyone who does. I would certainly correct anyone who stated that.

johnny: And it's hypocritical to object to that?

You have attempted to soften the blow by using "wrong doctrinally". What LDS actually teach is that our creeds are an abomination and that we are Apostate. Apostates are not Christian at all. The hypocrisy is obvious.

fyi, I do consider RLDS or whatever they are called now, as a Christian religion, by definition.

sr

[Guest johnny_cat]

I don't recall anyone ever clarifying that by "not Christian" they really don't mean that we don't believe in Christ. On the contrary, the effort seems designed to marginalize us as some foreign religion with nothing in common with "normal" people. Otherwise, why do I have to keep explaining to people why it is that I celebrate Christmas and Easter and read the Bible. It's not because they've been told that we differ doctrinally about Christ.

The word "abomination" is in the scripture. "Apostate" is not. I was paraphrasing the "they were all wrong" statement, not softening anything.

It seems a bit strange that you haven't considered that telling people we aren't Christian might lead them to believe that we don't believe in Christ as our Savior.

[Dan_]

Dictionary.com :

  1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

  2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

  3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

  4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

  5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

I would hope all of those would apply to LDS members. Oh, but lets *cite another definition. Actually, many. Google "define: christian"

a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

relating to or characteristic of Christianity; "Christian rites"

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

A disciple of Jesus Christ. Many persons have made the claim of being Christ's disciples, but Jesus himself said he would disown those calling him Lord if they did not do the will of his father. (Mat 7:21-23) The founder of Christianity was above all other things a witness of his heavenly father Jehovah. (Rev 1:5) His true followers today are likewise. (1Pe 2:21)

bookshelf.info/wordlists/e/eec/www/=C.html

"One who believes the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin." [DD] Fundies believe only another Fundie can be a Christian.

members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

....................................................................

Heres and interesting one....

The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word christianos which is derived from the word christos, or Christ, which means "anointed one." A Christian, then, is someone who is a follower of Christ. The first use of the word "Christian" in the Bible is found in Acts 11:26, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." It is found only twice more in Acts 26:28 and 1 Pet. 4:16. However, it is important to note that it is the true Christ that makes someone a Christian, not the Mormon one (brother of the devil), or the JW one (Michael the Archangel), the New Age Jesus (a man in tune with the divine Christ Consciousness), etc. The true Christ is God in flesh: Jesus.

www.sullivan-county.com/identity/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm

Who decides then, really? *Do I worship the brother of the devil? I am a causcasian; if the whole world decides I am an albino Native American or African American, or Asian, or any distinguishingly different race for that matter, am I then one? Or do we have to wait until a new dictionary is written to redefine the term? As others said, no one holds the right to the word. That would be too much power. Someone would be too tempted to make Democrat mean Republican, or tuna mean *salmon. Oh no!

"All meanings, we know, depend on the key of interpretation."

~ George Eliot (1819-1880)

[1dc]

. . that we are Apostate. Apostates are not Christian at all. The hypocrisy is obvious.

Sorry to burst your hypocritical bubble. One can't be apostate to what one hasn't already accepted.

Google web def. - "deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc."

1. A person whose left the Church can be an apostate to fullness of the Gospel but that doesn't automatically mean they've rejected Christ as their Savior.

2. Somebody who still has faith in Christ hasn't left being a Christian.

[Guest johnny_cat]

For what it's worth, I don't care if sr or anyone else calls my beliefs abominable, apostate, or even evil. What I do object to is his insisting on appropriating the definition of Christian and narrowing it just enough to exclude me.

[Ruby Hunter]

Without reading all 6 pages of this back and forth debate that makes me wonder if the so called "christians" really are what they say they are.... I have my own answer.

Are Member of the Latter-day Saint Faith Christian?

YES!

If you disagree, you are most likely blind and deaf.

thats just my opinion though. I know it to be true, so its good enough for me.

I'm a Christian and I"m proud of it!

[1dc]

I didn't mean to pick on MUEagle, though he is the one who at least implied that he understands my relationship with the Savior better than I do. You may be surprised to hear that I do think MUEagle is trying to help. My issue with him has always been that his view of LDS doctrine is terribly skewed (though he doesn't think so) and that he occasionally ridicules our faith (which I think he would readily admit to).

When one is trying to help they listen to the patient's screams and adjust their actions to do no harm . . .

[Guest johnny_cat]

When one is trying to help they listen to the patient's screams and adjust their actions to do no harm . . .

I didn't say he was particularly effective in his efforts to witness to us.

[1dc]

The 'Poor persecuted Mormons" history is nothing like your Church historian have told you. You can read it for yourself or you can choose to be willfully ignorant. It's your agency, not mine that is in question.

Re-read your own words . . then read a few journals of those who endured through Kirtland, Far West, and Nauvoo . . .

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/

There are also many papers and government documents that document the persecution . . even state laws and apologies.

Were LDS people perfect? Nope. But you won't find anything on this scale of these LDS people persecuting other faiths and if your anecdotes were the norm, the LDS people would have crumbled just like so many totalitarians have around the world.

[1dc]

When one is trying to help they listen to the patient's screams and adjust their actions to do no harm . . .

I didn't say he was particularly effective in his efforts to witness to us.

After enough screams fall on ears that will not hear the purpose of being at the bedside and effectiveness at that purpose allow those with eyes that will see to see . . .

[Guest johnny_cat]

The interesting thing to me is that people are quick to condemn the early Saints for reacting violently in Missouri to building violence and persecution, but these same "objective" critics can't bring themselves to condemn the violence the Saints were reacting to. The report Nepheye cites is from 1841, eight years after the mob violence in Independence, which ended with the Saints being driven out. Even the anti-Mormon writer Bill McKeever agrees that the violence was a response to what had been done to them previously: "The acts of violence brought against the Mormon settlers and the fact that the Mormons felt they would not receive proper redress compelled them to retaliate." It's not a simple case of aggressive Mormons attacking their neighbors. Yes, their retaliation was neither wise nor in keeping with their faith. But to act as if that is the sum total of violence in Missouri is to ignore history.

Obviously, the early Mormons weren't entirely blameless, especially when they responded with violence in Northern Missouri, but the idea that they got what they deserved can't be justified.

[1dc]

Christ was indicating the requirement to view him in a certain way to really be his follower. This would exclude those who did not view him in this certain way from his followers.

LOL . . now THAT is wresting scripture . . it isn't about viewing, it is about living righteously for God:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed"

If LDS are the ones that view him in this "correct" way, everyone else does not.

EVs argue that LDS view a different Jesus. So they're using the hypocritical flip side of this coin to argue LDS are not Christian.

No, "viewing" Him correctly or not isn't the issue . . it's whether one commits himself completely to follow Him and on who's head He truly gives His authority for ordinances (as you were taught previously).

PS - you correctly point out that the concern is in converts lost to another (Christian) faith, the Church of Jesus Christ . . as if Christ would have such concern under the unity theme proclaimed by traditional Christians . . . so it seems the convert concern of a predominately paid ministry is something else . . and perhaps they will never publicly admit it.

[Guest johnny_cat]

LOL . . now THAT is wresting scripture . . it isn't about viewing, it is about living righteously for God:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed"

So, apparently, it isn't enough to accept Jesus as one's personal Savior and become born again. One must also have a correct doctrinal understanding of the Trinity to be saved. And once saved, one is always saved, unless of course one does something unforgivable, like join the LDS church.

[KevinG]

My response is late here but I couldn't get to the boards:

SR,

I don

[MorningStar]

[it

[Guest johnny_cat]

Obfuscate the fact that Latter Day Saints indeed believe that Jesus Christ is their God and Savior in order to give others a false impression of them.

Whether that is the intent or not, that is the impression left when Christian pastors tell people we are not Christian. It doesn't exactly make for more understanding or even for a proper discussion of where we differ.

[Avatar4321]

It seems pretty obvious that the whole "not Christian, wrong Jesus" thing is calculated to marginalize Mormons, to give people preconceived notions about us so that they won't be tempted to interact with us or, heaven forbid, listen to our point of view. It might be a good tactical and rhetorical device, but it is dishonest and has led to a great deal of misunderstanding.

I deffinately agree here. Ive always had the philosophy that if its true you dont have to forbid people from looking at the truth. Its one of the reasons I gained a testimony. I saw the critics of the Church marginalize the Gospel or twist it and lie about what we teach and i just had to ask myself, if there position is so true why do they have to lie? Meanwhile those who defended the Church would always be like "Here is some evidence, but if you want to know for yourself you need to ask God" The arguments for the Gospel werent based on lies about what others believed, in fact they didnt even try to prove it. They just provided some evidence to take into consideration and said go ask God and trust Him rather than us. I think thats one of the strengths of the Restored Gospel.

[Avatar4321]

How dare you question seeryou/Nepheye/Elihu? He knows the real scoop on things LDS. Actually it is pretty easy to figure out how things really are as they relate to things LDS. All accounts critical of things LDS are 100% true and all accounts showing any favor toward things LDS are 100% false. You see, there is absolutely no way things LDS can be true or good. If you realize this, it is easy to assess the veracity of any LDS claim.

Course he does. and any court case in 1841 Missouri would never have been biased to Mormons. I mean after all you had so many first hand accounts from mormons present at the hearings....whoops i forgot. The mormons had no opportunity to get their side heard in Missouri because Governor Boggs had decided it was alright to kill mormons at sight.

But that doesnt matter. Cause Nepheye is right. There was no mormon persecution.

[Avatar4321]

johnny, you're not understanding this. The LDS Church foundation is based upon the accusation that all churches were wrong, that their creeds (which have not changed) are an abomination.

There was no accusation that all church were wrong. It was a statement of fact from Christ Himself. if you have a problem with it take it up with Him. You should know this by now considering how many conversations we've had. why is it you refuse to acknowledge this?

[Dan]

I would say, based on my understanding of what a Christian is, that Mormons are without a doubt Christian. Although I respect the opinion of those who have a different interpretation of what a Christian is then I do.

--Dan

[juliann]

I doesn't matter what you say or don't say. The LDS church does teach that LDS are the only true Christians, and has since its inception.

That is uncategorically untrue. Shame on you. We do teach we are the "true church".

I have been told by LDS countless times that LDS are the only true Christians, and this fits nicely with the historical LDS teachings on the subject.

If what I say doesn't matter...why do these mysterious sources matter? You, as usual, provide no documentation beyond bluster.

I don't believe that my denomination are the "only true Christians". But if I did, I sure wouldn't be hypocritical about it.

I thought that was a little too nuanced for you. I'll type slower and number it for you.

1. You say LDS are not Christians.

2. If you make even one distinction, you have created a category for "true Christian" and "not even close Christian".

Ya with me so far?

3. You put yourself in the "true Christian" category.

4. You target others for the "not even close Christian" category.

We doin' ok here?

5. Therefore, you have placed yourself in the true group and others in the not true group!

We can then conclude that you do, indeed, consider yourself true and others not true. It is really cute the way you guys try to weasle out of it by expanding your line of demarcation to include a few more denominations than your own very true one....but that line between true and false still exists.....with you on the right side of it, of course.

Now stop being so silly.

[KevinG]

Now stop being so silly.

I find myself needing correction. I had been wondering if accusations of LDS not being christian were ignorance or lies, when all along completely ignoring the possibility that anti-mormons are just plain silly!

Juliann you have enlightened me.

(man it is sooooo past my bedtime).

G'night

[rongo]

Teencum, the source listed is objective recorded history, and is sworn testimony of record. It isn't a fable or fantasy . . . The 'Poor persecuted Mormons' history is nothing like your Church historian have told you. You can read it for yourself or you can choose to be willfully ignorant. It's your agency, not mine that is in question.

Nepheye, do you deny that the Mormons were driven from three states without due process? If so, where is your "objective recorded history" that demonstrates that any Mormons were tried AND convicted for what you claim? This fact, that those seeking to drive the Mormons out did not use legal means and the court system to seek recourse for alleged Mormon wrongs, is devastating to your claims.

To remind you of what you've been asked to respond to, here are links:

#1

#2

You can claim all you want that Mormons committed, as a people and under direction from their leaders, great wrongs; all you cite is "sworn testimony" from mobocrat vigilantes who illegally deprived Mormons of life, liberty, and property. Why did they not punish the alleged (outnumbered minority) perpetrators according to the law? They admitted that the law didn't give them protection from the "wrongs" of the Mormons, which is as much as to admit that the Mormons hadn't done anything wrong. They were alarmed that the Mormons moving in would gain political influence and become the majority; that was their crime (oh, and the Mormons believed in revelation, the Book of Mormon, etc. That was mentioned in the Mob Manifesto, too).

Can't you see that your "objective recorded history . . . sworn testimony of record" is meaningless without evidence of attempts to remedy the alleged wrongs by legal means? Unless you can provide this, the account given by "our Church historian" has the soundest foundation; after all, it but claims what the historical record AND historical results bear out.

Your invitation to "read it for yourself or . . . choose to be willfully ignorant" is amusing. How much of the opposite view have you read? As you can see, many of us have read quite a bit of anti-Mormon claims, and this puts us at a great advantage. You throw out things from anti-Mormon sources, but you are obviously not acquainted with both versions so as to be able to weigh and sift the evidence.

Remember: you can admit that you have thrown around historical allegations irresponsibly, and this doesn't mean that you believe Mormonism is true. But it would be responsible and noble of you, and a step in the right direction.

Looking forward to your reply!