Which of the Articles of Faith are Necessary to be a Christian?

[Navidad]

I have recently finished reading Stephen Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christians." In it he makes the case that yes indeed Mormons believe what is necessary to be accurately welcomed into the Christian family. I believe him and I believe that as well when referring to specific individual Mormons, just as I would say specific individual Baptists or Catholics. So I want to ask a similar question a different way.  You all know your 13 Articles of Faith - here is the link if you need a refresher: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.1-13.

My question is this - which of the 13 Articles of Faith do you believe are necessary for someone to believe in order to be considered a Christian? My question is not which are necessary to believe to make someone a Latter-day Saint? Rather it is, which are necessary to allow someone to be named a Christian? For ease of response and to respect your time, don't feel you need to provide more than the article numbers. Or obviously any clarification you would like to add.

Thanks so much, Phil

[Jane_Doe]

For generic Christian: #1 is the huge one-- it's definition of what it is to be a Christian.  

[Avatar4321]

id say at least the first three

Edited September 2, 2018 by Avatar4321

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

id say at least the first three

But almost all Christians don't agree with #2. Original Sin is a deeply held Christian belief.

I believe 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, first part of 8, 9, 11, 12, 13

Of course, part of the issue is that some of the words have a different meaning for Mormons than for Catholics, such as #1 (Trinity vs Godhead).

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For generic Christian: #1 is the huge one-- it's definition of what it is to be a Christian.  

Hi Jane: I am intrigued by your use of the word generic Christian? How many kinds of Christians are there? Again, I am not asking which of the beliefs make someone a Mormon, or Eastern Orthodox, or Catholic. What are the essentials, the basics more or less to called a Christian. An example, a very strong belief for Mennonites is the concept of peace and conflict resolution. That is a cardinal belief of Anabaptism. That doesn't make Mennonites Christians and all non-Mennonites, non-Christians. Mormons believe strongly in exaltation. I wouldn't say that makes them Christians, does it? Catholics believe in extreme unction. That doesn't make them Christians. In fact they write “sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification.” They don't save anyone, but reflect a pre-existing grace in the person' life, like baptism is for us. I guess my original question was to try and get through to the very basics. That is why I ask which of the the 13, in the minds of the Saints represented in this forum necessary to be a Christian (generic?). 😊

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I guess my original question was to try and get through to the very basics. That is why I ask which of the the 13, in the minds of the Saints represented in this forum necessary to be a Christian (generic?). 😊

AofF#1: Belief in the Father, His Son (the Savior, Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost -- that's what makes a person a Christian.  The Bible already defines a Christian as a disciple of Christ.  

Rest of the the A of F, aren't required to be a Christian, though many Christians would indeed agree with many of them (like 13 is pretty universal).  

 

[Prof]

I would say 1 for sure. Probably the first part of 3 and 4.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have recently finished reading Stephen Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christians." In it he makes the case that yes indeed Mormons believe what is necessary to be accurately welcomed into the Christian family. I believe him and I believe that as well when referring to specific individual Mormons, just as I would say specific individual Baptists or Catholics. So I want to ask a similar question a different way.  You all know your 13 Articles of Faith - here is the link if you need a refresher: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.1-13.

My question is this - which of the 13 Articles of Faith do you believe are necessary for someone to believe in order to be considered a Christian? My question is not which are necessary to believe to make someone a Latter-day Saint? Rather it is, which are necessary to allow someone to be named a Christian? For ease of response and to respect your time, don't feel you need to provide more than the article numbers. Or obviously any clarification you would like to add.

Thanks so much, Phil

I agree that #1, "We believe in... Jesus Christ" is the minimum standard because to believe in Him carries the weight of recognizing His Divinity.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

........................ which of the the 13, in the minds of the Saints represented in this forum necessary to be a Christian (generic?). 😊

If you are merely polling to see what level of informed and uninformed opinion is held by Mormons on this forum, then the answer will provide a range of opinion which is largely meaningless from a factual POV.

If you are actually attempting to determine what is basic to christianity and the LDS Articles of Faith, then you are also likely to get a range of informed and uninformed opinion.  It will again be virtually meaningless, primarily because the definition of "Christian" and "Christianity" is so variable -- and the views of the late Stephen Robinson are only a beginning of a real discussion.

If you are asking WWJS (what would Jesus say?), you would again receive a range of informed and uninformed opinion.  The same would apply to the views of the Apostle Paul.  This is a theological question, the answers to which run the gamut from the Westminster Confession of Faith to the Apostles' Creed, and an infinity of points in between.  You might have more success asking the truly hard question:  What is Christianity?

One writer held that there are no Christians, i.e., that Christianity had never been tried -- the admonitions of Jesus to love and do good to enemies being a bridge too far:  "An impossible love" (Andre Schwarz-Bart, The Last of the Just).

Are there in fact any Christians?  And how can we identify them?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have recently finished reading Stephen Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christians." In it he makes the case that yes indeed Mormons believe what is necessary to be accurately welcomed into the Christian family. I believe him and I believe that as well when referring to specific individual Mormons, just as I would say specific individual Baptists or Catholics. So I want to ask a similar question a different way.  You all know your 13 Articles of Faith - here is the link if you need a refresher: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.1-13.

My question is this - which of the 13 Articles of Faith do you believe are necessary for someone to believe in order to be considered a Christian? My question is not which are necessary to believe to make someone a Latter-day Saint? Rather it is, which are necessary to allow someone to be named a Christian? For ease of response and to respect your time, don't feel you need to provide more than the article numbers. Or obviously any clarification you would like to add.

Thanks so much, Phil

I would not be too concerned with the Articles of Faith, they really skip most of our true beliefs and were written for a newspaper article.

I don't know why people use them as if they are a creed or something- they are not.  I think of them more like a magazine ad for Mormonism.

[Jane_Doe]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you are merely polling to see what level of informed and uninformed opinion is held by Mormons on this forum, then the answer will provide a range of opinion which is largely meaningless from a factual POV.

If you are actually attempting to determine what is basic to christianity and the LDS Articles of Faith, then you are also likely to get a range of informed and uninformed opinion.  It will again be virtually meaningless, primarily because the definition of "Christian" and "Christianity" is so variable -- and the views of the late Stephen Robinson are only a beginning of a real discussion.

Speaking personally, I love studying other faiths.  When I do so, I don't want to just learn the official-on-the-books beliefs, but also the beliefs actually held be the people.  In any faith there's a spectrum of well-informed believers, "I don't know" believers, and some folks which just hold seemingly random weird ideas that have nothing to do with official theology.  I love to see all these different perspectives, because each of these folks is a child of God and I want to honestly understand what you believe (even if it's different than the official books).  Polls are a useful way of surveying that spectrum.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[strappinglad]

I caught a snipet of a broadcast today by a ' scholar ' who said that when Constantine was converted , he wanted to have an empire united in the faith. The problem was there were already many varieties of groups who claimed to follow Christ. In order to create a " consensus Christian " he called together many of the church leaders and , after much discussion, out came the official doctrines etc. The various groups were either absorbed or were stamped out over the years. Good luck defining a Christian. For over 1500 years one group has been trying to keep another out.

Oh, and the Muslims are still killing each other over which is following the ' true ' faith. I can't speak for the Buddhists , but the Hindus also have their factions. Why God puts up with us I don't know.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Why God puts up with us I don't know.

I know it was rhetorical, but here's the answer: because He loves us so.

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The problem was there were already many varieties of groups who claimed to follow Christ. In order to create a " consensus Christian " he called together many of the church leaders and , after much discussion, out came the official doctrines etc. The various groups were either absorbed or were stamped out over the years. Good luck defining a Christian. For over 1500 years one group has been trying to keep another out.

I don't see this as a problem. Call together those who have authority and ask them to answer the issues. Those who are correct are absorbed. Those who are not are "stamped out" of Christianity. I think it was a perfectly sensibly strategy. What did you want instead? Those who didn't have authority deciding?

[strappinglad]

The problem was that the " stamping out " often took the form of force of arms and fire. Christ-like ? Who am I to judge.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

The problem was that the " stamping out " often took the form of force of arms and fire. Christ-like ? Who am I to judge.

So they were right but the methods used were wrong?

(and are you judging or not?)

 

[strappinglad]

I'm sure the leaders of the Jews at the time of Christ felt fully justified by the Law to call for and require the death of Jesus for preaching and acting contrary to the rules. A policy of ' convert/submit or die ' is wrong no matter who pushes it or what methods are used. There, I judged !

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

I don't see this as a problem. Call together those who have authority and ask them to answer the issues. Those who are correct are absorbed. Those who are not are "stamped out" of Christianity. I think it was a perfectly sensibly strategy. What did you want instead? Those who didn't have authority deciding?

That is all very well, until someone asks the crucial question:  Who has the authority?

Also, isn't it the case that "Nice guys finish last"?  Why would we ever suppose that the dominant group is also the "correct" group?

[CV75]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not be too concerned with the Articles of Faith, they really skip most of our true beliefs and were written for a newspaper article.

I don't know why people use them as if they are a creed or something- they are not.  I think of them more like a magazine ad for Mormonism.

An ad that has been canonized, nonetheless. Otherwise "I am the way, the truth, and the life" was more like a slogan or catchphrase. Not that either should be used as a creed...

[theplains]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I agree that #1, "We believe in... Jesus Christ" is the minimum standard because to believe in Him carries the weight of recognizing His Divinity.

It's a matter of using the same word but having a different meaning, even when it comes to worshipping Heavenly
Father.  While Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders taught that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a
God, many others who would classify themselves as 'Christians' worship a Being who has always been God.  As 
another example, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Jesus Christ (who is really Michael the Archangel in their
theology). 

One must be able to discern between the true and the false because salvation depends on it.   If Jesus ends up
being only a prophet like Islam teaches and I have placed my faith in the wrong person, then I am lost as there is
no second chance after death.

Jim

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

One must be able to discern between the true and the false because salvation depends on it. 

Salvation is not dependent on passing a theology test.  I'm sad that you would think to limit Christ and His atonement in such a way.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

It's a matter of using the same word but having a different meaning, even when it comes to worshipping Heavenly
Father.  While Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders taught that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a
God, many others who would classify themselves as 'Christians' worship a Being who has always been God.  As 
another example, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Jesus Christ (who is really Michael the Archangel in their
theology). 

One must be able to discern between the true and the false because salvation depends on it.   If Jesus ends up
being only a prophet like Islam teaches and I have placed my faith in the wrong person, then I am lost as there is
no second chance after death.

Jim

I'm glad we are both Christian anyway.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

It's a matter of using the same word but having a different meaning, even when it comes to worshipping Heavenly
Father.  While Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders taught that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a
God, many others who would classify themselves as 'Christians' worship a Being who has always been God.  As 
another example, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Jesus Christ (who is really Michael the Archangel in their
theology). 

One must be able to discern between the true and the false because salvation depends on it.   If Jesus ends up
being only a prophet like Islam teaches and I have placed my faith in the wrong person, then I am lost as there is
no second chance after death.

Jim

Yes and this is why the Evangelical seems contradictory to us.  Why would God create his children to burn in hell if we didn't "get it right" through no fault of their own?   I cannot even imagine that a merciful God would do that.

I think frankly we take it deeper by thinking about what "time" is.

Was there "time" before the creation?  And yet God supposedly existed before time?  What was he "doing" before time?

How is it possible for us to even imagine what it means to "exist" outside of time?   Our mental categories cannot handle it.  I remember trying to figure out, when I was in like second grade, what God was doing "before" he made us- AND time along with it

As a second grader in Catholic school I had to memorize this excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism:

http://www.cmri.org/baltimore-catechism-no2-lessons1-10.shtml

 

Quote

 

1. Who made us?
God made us.

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2. Who is God?
God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.

In him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

3. Why did God make us?
God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. (I Corinthians 2:9)

 

God made us to "show forth his goodness"??   To whom and why did he need to show forth his goodness?

So He must have made a decision to do that action- to "show forth his goodness" AND to "share with us".

We were not yet around yet then he must have had a plan to CREATE US too, right?   So that he could show forth is goodness to us who had not yet been created?

And so he did all this before he created time??   But did it take him time to figure out the plan??

Obviously there are problems- DEEP problems with this kind of explanation and if a second grader can see that.....

And so we have the idea of a pre-existence- a "time" before time - when all this "happened" or another explanation- time is RELATIVE to THIS creation or this planet or this earth or this Creation or Big Bang- or Cycle- or Buddhist "Kalpas" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

It seems other religions have no problem with the relativity of time to our perception of it- and that is the only logical answer to even HOW God could have created the Universe for his "purposes"- which must have "existed" "BEFORE" "time" as we think of it.

So our notion is that God was a man in another time reference BEFORE our time reference and an eternity FOR US is "One Eternal Round" which quite frankly I see as pretty much a similar view to the Buddhist Kalpa

So no conflict here at all, but one must take a more ..... complex.... view of how all this works in order for it to make sense.

One must be able to imagine a higher context into which one "jumps" - a kind of quantum leap looking at an even bigger picture than the way we ordinarily see things.

Tarski called these "meta-languages" my little example above is an example of a meta-language in which we take the context of the statement "up" to a "higher level" by seeing a "larger" explanation.  If God created the world AND time- he must have done so "outside time" or in "another time" reference.  This sees the problem in a "larger" context of time being relative to OUR perception but not to God's perception of time.  One must "step out" of the context to a "higher" context.   It's like suddenly questioning a game one is playing and considering the RULES of the game instead of staying within the context of the game.

In the off chance anyone is actually interested in the logic of how this works, here is a link and a quote from that link:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/#SH1c
 

Quote

 

b. Tarski’s Hierarchy of Meta-Languages

Reflection on the Liar Paradox suggests that either informal English (or any other natural language) is not semantically closed or, if it is semantically closed as it appears to be, then it is inconsistent—assuming for the moment that it does make sense to apply the term "inconsistent" to a natural language with a vague structure. Because of the vagueness of natural language, Tarski quit trying to find the paradox-free structure within natural languages and concentrated on developing formal languages that did not allow the deduction of a contradiction, but which diverge from natural language "as little as possible."

One virtue of Tarski's way out of the Paradox is that it does permit the concept of truth to be applied to sentences that involve the concept of truth, provided we apply level subscripts to the concept of truth and follow the semantic rule that any subscript inside a pair of quotation marks is smaller than the subscript outside but still within the sentence; any violation of this rule produces a meaningless, ungrammatical formal sentence, but not a false one. The language of level 1 is the meta-language of the object language in level 0. Level 0 sentences don't contain truth or similar terms, but would contain, say, "Paris is the capital of France." The sentence saying this level 0 sentence is true occurs in level 1. It would be: "'Paris is the capital of France' is true0." No language is allowed to contain its own truth predicate.

The rule for subscripts stops the formation of both the Classical Liar Sentence and the Strengthened Liar Sentence anywhere within the hierarchy. The subscripting also stops paradoxical chains that start as follows:

The next sentence is true.

The previous sentence is false.

 

 

[theplains]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Salvation is not dependent on passing a theology test.  I'm sad that you would think to limit Christ and His atonement in such a way.  

Salvation is dependent on Jesus, the Eternal God. That's why I don't believe someone is saved when they
identify Jesus as falsely being Michael the Archangel even though they also believe in His atonement. If
this were the case, then one could make up any version of Jesus they liked as long as they teach the
atonement. 

Imagine someone saying Jane_Doe is 25 years old, born in Utah, her parents being John and Sally ... if only
one of those facts is wrong, then we're not talking about the same Jane_Doe anymore.  It's the same when
you consider those who believe Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God.  Some details about
him agree with what the scriptures teach, but in the end you have an entirely different person because you
are describing the wrong nature and origin.

But then again, things really get confusing when you begin to consider who provided the atonement for
the sins of Heavenly Mother when she was only a woman before supposedly progressing into becoming a
God.

Jim

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Obviously there are problems- DEEP problems with this kind of explanation and if a second grader can see that.....

Not at all. Try explaining quantum physics to a second grader. Just because the second grader can't understand it and thinks there is some sort of problem doesn't mean there is a problem.

And yes, our brains can't understand the concept of outside of time, but that doesn't mean the concept is false. Read up on the mystics and mystical experience (including mystical experiences had by Nobel prize winning physicists who codified quantum physics).

It's a matter of consciousness. Different types of consciousness are able to discern, be aware of, be conscious of different "realities." That is why spiritual practice aims to shift consciousness away from our mundane I-gotta-survive daily consciousness, to a consciousness that is aware of higher "realities."

Check out William James again  

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So no conflict here at all, but one must take a more ..... complex.... view of how all this works in order for it to make sense.

Actually, the more complex view is the idea of a God that is outside of time and space. Your idea is simple enough for a second grader to understand it

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One must be able to imagine a higher context into which one "jumps" - a kind of quantum leap looking at an even bigger picture than the way we ordinarily see things.

Exactly! That's what I was saying about different levels of consciousness to understand higher realities, such as the reality that my deepest level of being intersects God, and that God is ground of all being. I can't see or explain this properly in mundane consciousness, but I have experienced it in meditation on monastic retreat.

I think the even bigger pictures contains the smaller pictures as well. The idea of holons, where consciousness/reality are like nested Russian dolls. Each doll is complete by itself, but the bigger (higher) doll encompasses the previously complete doll and then some. So my reality right now is complete, but if I move into a higher consciousness/reality, it will include this one and then some.

Have you read Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith? It is short and I highly recommend it. It covers the ideas of different levels of religious consciousness and the great chain of being.

 

[theplains]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes and this is why the Evangelical seems contradictory to us.  Why would God create his children to burn in hell if we didn't "get it right" through no fault of their own?   I cannot even imagine that a merciful God would do that.

I believe the scriptures give us the true identity of Jesus Christ so we don't have that excuse of not getting it right through
no fault of our own.  That's why the Bible warns of false teachers of prophets - this presumes we know how to detect
them.  We have the choice to hear the truth and then to accept or reject it.  That is why I don't follow a Jesus who is said
to be Michael the Archangel or some "spirit become God after reaching a pinnacle of intelligence."

Taking a glance into LDS theology for a bit ... if 1/3 of Heavenly Father's spirit children knew they would be in the lake of
fire with Satan, I highly doubt they would have followed him in the war against Jesus (as some interpret Revelation 12 to
denote).

For those who have never heard the gospel, I believe God will judge them on the knowledge of Him they had at death.

My brother said he would wait until after death to make his choice.  But I told him it would be too late.  Because it would not
be based on faith, but on fact.  He can't use the excuse that he didn't know or was deceived.  He just wouldn't accept the
truth (yet) when he heard it.

Jim