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

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Jeanne has new articles of faith:  Yes...I stole them..but love them.

1.  that newer isn't better and there is something inherently good in hard work.

2,  that friends who feel like family are the best kind of friends and that nothing matters more than family.

3.  that today is  a gift and that very day miracles are scattered about if only we have eyes to see them.

4.  in seeking the balance between hustle and rest and striving to be passionate about both:  a leisurely first cup of coffee start the day mindfully and then at day''s

end not clocking out of a job till you''re proud.

5. that failure needn't be a negative thing:  rather, we learn from our mistakes and fail smarter the next time.

6.  in doing work that w love and, in choosing that, nudging others toward doing what they love.

7.  IN courage, in cartwheeling past our comfort zones and trying something a little bit scary every day.

8.  that its time for the pendulum of trend to swing back to the basics

9.  in subtle beauty, the that doesnt deteriorate with age or wear.

10.  and of all heroic pursuits large or samll, we believe there may be none greater than a life well loved.

(And to make it 13)

11.  I believe in God and HIs Son Jesus Christ.

12.  I believe in the Atonement..the resurrection..and eternal life.

13.  I believe I have a Heavenly Mother who really needs me to talk to her...and vise versa...

Why does she need you to talk to her?

Is she lonely?

Oh I get it.  Her husband is always busy with church...... 

 

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Oh my! You just haven't been listening to me! 😀 I am a rock solid evangelical and I disagree with others who may be evangelicals on this forum. That doesn't mean they are wrong and I am right; it just shows the diversity in the evangelical community.

For what $0.02 it's worth, I do indeed acknowledge that diversity.  I'm sorry if that somehow wasn't coming across.  

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Oh my! You just haven't been listening to me! 😀 I am a rock solid evangelical and I disagree with others who may be evangelicals on this forum. That doesn't mean they are wrong and I am right; it just shows the diversity in the evangelical community. Why are you insisting even after you know better to lump evangelicals in one monolithic group? Sigh, I think you are much more biased against evangelicals than most of them are against Mormons, but your blind spot just keeps rolling along. I think you simply don't want to change your perspective about evangelicals so therefore you never will. "To Me all evangelicals must believe that those people will burn in hell forever." You keep insisting on that even after I, as an evangelical tell your differently. Sigh. You are stuck my friend in your prejudice and bias. Then you are quick to go back to predestination, even after you know that most evangelicals don't believe in predestination - because I have told you so. You are stuck in your prejudice, and 19th century bias against evangelicals - who didn't even exist in the 19th century. Oh my! You are a very bright guy - open up your mind to the wonderful diversity within evangelicalism about the future status of those who have never heard. Oh and by the way, evangelicals and denominations are not the same thing. Evangelicals cross over many denominations; they are pan-denominational,  including Mormonism! But I forget, you don't seem to think it is possible for there to be Mormon evangelicals!

I agree with you and did not mean to lump you in with those who believe differently than you do 

You are obviously a "good" one just like evangelicals might believe there are actually "Christian" Mormons. 

But there's a BIG problem then with the whole idea then of "Evangelical CHRISTIANITY" as a definable position if you all believe differently!

Eph 4:

Quote

 

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

So what the heck then IS an Evangelical since there is different doctrine on every street corner?

What- I have to shop for the "right" doctrine at all those little shops of religion?  And who am I supposed to believe as being "right" when Evangelicals squabble over doctrine?

I know- you all believe in the Bible and "Salvation" "instinctively" but yet of course it is a grave error to believe the Book of Mormon "instinctively"

Please don't take any of this personally- I do consider you a good friend, I am just trying to figure out all that I see which is contradictory in Protestantism in general- and we have not even scratched the surface!

To me this is friendly banter- and I know I sometimes offend people with my tone though I do not mean to do so.

I kind of am still trying to learn how to be "nice"- and I really need to improve! 

And honestly I tend only to read replies to me and not the rest of the thread since I really do not have the time to do otherwise except sometimes on weekends.   I have a 16 hour job on weekends, called "church" 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you and did not mean to lump you in with those who believe differently than you do 

You are obviously a "good" one just like evangelicals might believe there are actually "Christian" Mormons. 

But there's a BIG problem then with the whole idea then of "Evangelical CHRISTIANITY" as a definable position if you all believe differently!

Eph 4:

So what the heck then IS an Evangelical since there is different doctrine on every street corner?

What- I have to shop for the "right" doctrine at all those little shops of religion?  And who am I supposed to believe as being "right" when Evangelicals squabble over doctrine?

I know- you all believe in the Bible and "Salvation" "instinctively" but yet of course it is a grave error to believe the Book of Mormon "instinctively"

Please don't take any of this personally- I do consider you a good friend, I am just trying to figure out all that I see which is contradictory in Protestantism in general- and we have not even scratched the surface!

To me this is friendly banter- and I know I sometimes offend people with my tone though I do not mean to do so.

I kind of am still trying to learn how to be "nice"- and I really need to improve! 

And honestly I tend only to read replies to me and not the rest of the thread since I really do not have the time to do otherwise except sometimes on weekends.   I have a 16 hour job on weekends, called "church" 

 

 

Yes, this is friendly banter - I am not offended in any way. First, I went to a thoroughly evangelical funeral yesterday - for three hours in total. A wonderful 90 year old Christian man passed away. There were probably 200 friends and family members there and dozens of floral sprays. There were three special songs, two eulogies and a sermon. Most of the two eulogies and the sermon focused on the atonement and sufficiency of Christ and encouraged anyone one present to make a commitment to him if they had not previously done so. All three clearly spoke about how our treasures are laid up in heaven and the impact of a Godly man. It was thoroughly evangelical in every way. I have been to and/or conducted many funerals, this one was a solid Christian and evangelical one, and it was at our chapel for a member of our ward and of "The Church." No evangelical I have ever met would have had one scintilla of discomfort at anything that was said. All three songs are in the Baptist hymnal and the Mennonite hymnal. "Nearer my God to Thee" was the main hymn sung. It was sung in Spanish, but methinks God is more than bilingual!

Ok now down to business. You asked a question....."what the heck this IS an evangelical since there is a different doctrine on every street corner?" This is a good question; one I have been asking about Mormons for years. Still not sure I have an answer since believing in the articles of faith is not adequate. First of all, let me get this off my chest - for a Mormon to question evangelicalism because evangelicals hold differing beliefs is what my momma used to call "the pot calling the kettle black!" I know many Saints and can guarantee you there are wide divergences among members of the LDS Church on 1. the first vision; 2. the historicity and authorship/translator role of the BOM. 3. the correct interpretation, meaning and translation of the POGP, 3. the correct sense of the "Great Apostasy," the 4. exact role and meaning of the priesthood, 5. the access and nature of the five levels of the five kingdoms of the afterlife (telestial, terrestial, and 3 celestials) - especially for non-Mormons; 6. the role of women in The Church; 7. gays and lesbians; 8. the role and meaning of the Holy Ghost; 9. the exact nature of continual revelation; and on and on. And this doesn't even include the wide gaps in understanding of LDS history - the traditional versus the "new Mormon history." The latter is of special interest to me. It really gets folks riled up.  So, don't talk to me about having different definable positions!

In Mexico an evangelical is anyone who is not Catholic or Jewish. It is a broad term for a Protestant and it does not include Mormons or Mennonites. The latter two are seen as cultures, almost races of their own. They are a kind of ethnicity. Evangelical in Spanish refers to a non-Catholic Christian whether Hispanic or Anglo.  This is a very broad definition and is not accurate, except in our unique Mexican culture. In today's US theological circles Christians tend to be divided into four groupings: fundamentalists, mainstream, evangelical, and "other." Some would include Pentecostals as a fifth group and some indicating that Pentecostals can be found in any of the main four streams. All this dividing up began in the late 19th and early twentieth century, culminating in the 1940's. These four streams are not the same as denominations. The terms sometimes refer to different denominations, but they are more accurately applied to individuals, not to groups. They are identities within themselves. For example, I know many fundamentalist Presbyterians; I know mainstream Presbyterians, evangelical Presbyterians. I am sure there are Pentecostal Presbyterians, especially in the south, but I don't personally know any. The same can be said for most denominations - but not all. It would take a good telescope to find a fundamentalist Unitarian-Universalist person. It would probably be hard to find a mainstream Plymouth Brethren as well. 

The Evangelical movement in the US began as a backlash to both the tenets of fundamentalism and of mainstream Protestant individuals, educational institutions and writings. Broadly speaking, mainstream Christianity became quite focused on social justice issues in the late 19th and early to mid 10th centuries - it seems they lost some of the focus on personal salvation on an individual kind. Their interpretation of Scripture changed dramatically. Fundamentalism reacted to that and asserted itself. Although there were any number of fundamentalists who were also socially progressive, like William Jennings Bryan for example, a Cumberland Presbyterian. He had strong individual beliefs that were peace-oriented, Biblically conservative, and socially progressive. In his lifetime evangelicalism did not exist as a movement. The fun of it all is that these terms are not particularly exclusive. Of course everyone has their own definitions, so it is messy. Kind of like talking to a member of the Community of Christ and a LDS person, and a LeBaron. Lots of shared beliefs, lots of differentiation. I digress. Evangelicalism developed in the forties as a reaction to fundamentalism and mainstreamers. Lots of water flowed into evangelicalism from both of the former thinking. There are groups to which individuals or certain denominations join, but they are not denominations themselves. Many fundamentalists have joined the IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) - they may be called Grace Baptist Church - they neither belong to any formal Baptist group, nor are they evangelicals. There is the NAE - the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE is not a denomination, but is a "home" for a certain Christian thinking that transcends denomination. Mainstream Christians gather in their own groups (The National Council of Churches) for example. Evangelicals are characterized by being Biblically conservative especially in hermeneutics, interested in proselytizing, being socially more diverse, valuing education, focusing on the atonement and grace, and being very inter or non-denominational. It is a second or third home for many. I am a Christian, I am an evangelical, and I am a Mennonite - probably in that order. If I became Mormon tomorrow, it would replace my Mennonite identification, my Christian and evangelical identity would stay intact. I have some fundamentalist heritage from my childhood. I am also socially rather progressive; very interested in social justice. I am also very interested in the "others." The word Evangelical is probably better thought of as an adjective than a noun.

Others such as Mormons, Anabaptists, conservative Catholics and Pentecostals are often placed in any of the groups, with the exception of mainstream (although there are Pentecostal Anglicans in the US and probably in England as well). Pentecostalism refers to specific beliefs about the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the same. Saints are most often placed in the "other" category because of the great confusion about their beliefs, and I think that many Saints are comfortable being the "other" as both a sociological (group) and theological construct. You often indicate that it is the Protestant who denies the Mormon the label of Christian. I don't question that, especially in the early and mid twentieth century. But I have clarity in my own mind that Mormons prefer to be the "other" and will vigorously resist becoming an acknowledged branch of Christianity. Such would risk their exclusiveness, their "onliness,"  their "trueness," which is the label most important. When I personally see Mormons bristle or frown is when I say "your grandson's baptism was no different than a Mennonite baptism!" When my wife says (like yesterday) "that funeral was no different than any other we have been to." Often Mormons ask us those questions. I sense they are hoping we say "it was wonderful, I have never seen anything like it." They rarely if ever seem pleased that we think it is the same as the same ordinance as practiced by their fellow-Christians (us). That disappoints them because they are absolutely sure that their way, manner, etc. is unique, better than, or at the very least for heavens sake, different from. For example, we often hear that Mormons don't dare interact with non-Mormons, especially the young people, because their "standards" will inevitably be compromised. The idea that other Christians might have similar or even higher standards is unthinkable. This is where I feel my wife and I are constantly watched. We confuse the folks because we are so similar to them, especially in our faith, standards, and lifestyle. I even had someone on this forum once ask me why I would tithe if I am not LDS (huh?). Certainly there are fundamentalist Mormons, evangelical Mormons, and probably a small percentage of mainstream Mormons who live miles away from Utah. I have books by some of them. There certainly are lots of "other" Mormons - probably the most comfortable slot for most I have met. Our bishop preached a wonderful gospel (not, The Gospel - as in the LDS Gospel)  message yesterday. It was wonderful.

Anyway I gotta run. I got hours today to spend in church ......err  ward ......err chapel .....err.......

Edited September 23, 2018 by Navidad

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Eph 4:

So what the heck then IS an Evangelical since there is different doctrine on every street corner?

What- I have to shop for the "right" doctrine at all those little shops of religion?  And who am I supposed to believe as being "right" when Evangelicals squabble over doctrine?

I know- you all believe in the Bible and "Salvation" "instinctively" but yet of course it is a grave error to believe the Book of Mormon "instinctively"

Please don't take any of this personally- I do consider you a good friend, I am just trying to figure out all that I see which is contradictory in Protestantism in general- and we have not even scratched the surface!

To me this is friendly banter- and I know I sometimes offend people with my tone though I do not mean to do so.

I kind of am still trying to learn how to be "nice"- and I really need to improve! 

I have the same problem. I think it at least partly comes with the subject matter. I tend to be very blunt about what I see as errors in other sects. That is often interpreted as being mean or offensive, when it is not intended that way at all. I have made close Catholic friends in the past while being a devout LDS Christian and firmly believing their religion to be full of errors, and things I personally would not do. But, if I brought up my points of error, I'm sure I would not be perceived well. Yet, people come to this board all the time and poke at what they perceive as errors of my faith, and I am supposed to be just fine with that. Religion is one of those topics not normally broached in "polite conversation," because it inevitably leads to differences in opinion - kinda like politics. Discussing these differences of opinion in a polite way can be tricky. I've always considered you to be a polite poster, but then I largely share your viewpoints on matters of religion. I think you sometimes get exasperated with people as do I. One thing that can set me off is if someone refuses to share their rationale, as if I can't understand or something like that - I might just turn around and try to give them a dose of their own medicine. But, I think by and large I am easy enough to get along with online. Nevertheless, I am not scared of sharing what I perceive to be errors and faults of other faiths, and why i did not choose to follow them for myself. I largely see that as sharing my own spiritual path, and cannot help if people take offense at that. Trying to avoid making myself right and everyone else wrong all the time is the trick I think to avoid appearing obnoxious or mean. There are after all different levels of understanding, and potentially different valid positions one can take about most religious matters. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

They rarely if ever seem pleased that we think it is the same as the same ordinance as practiced by their fellow-Christians (us). That disappoints them because they are absolutely sure that their way, manner, etc. is unique, better than, or at the very least for heavens sake, different from. For example, we often hear that Mormons don't dare interact with non-Mormons, especially the young people, because their "standards" will inevitably be compromised. The idea that other Christians might have similar or even higher standards is unthinkable. This is where I feel my wife and I are constantly watched. We confuse the folks because we are so similar to them, especially in our faith, standards, and lifestyle. I even had someone on this forum once ask me why I would tithe if I am not LDS (huh?). Certainly there are fundamentalist Mormons, evangelical Mormons, and probably a small percentage of mainstream Mormons who live miles away from Utah. I have books by some of them. There certainly are lots of "other" Mormons - probably the most comfortable slot for most I have met. Our bishop preached a wonderful gospel (not, The Gospel - as in the LDS Gospel)  message yesterday. It was wonderful.

Anyway I gotta run. I got hours today to spend in church ......err  ward ......err chapel .....err.......

Although you seem to be indicating otherwise, I have experienced that this is more pronounced in "Mormon areas" such as those found in Utah, Arizona, and Idaho. I grew up in Florida, and frankly members just couldn't afford to be like that. I did enjoy socializing with members, but there was no sense of avoiding non-members, etc. However, in Utah it is fairly easy to become "a black sheep" and definitely something to be avoided in a cultural sense. In other words if someone like me chooses to be outspoken about differences of opinion, it is easy to become "outside" the flock of "white sheep." I find that annoying in the least or worse. I realize you are speaking in generalities, but just realize what you are alluding to is not necessarily a characteristic of all LDS Christians. I believe it is largely a cultural thing that occurs in more heavily "Mormon" areas. However, you are right that I think all LDS Christians feel a certain sense of "otherness." I really feel like it is almost impossible to be LDS and not feel it. I think it is largely because most segments of for instance, the US population, treat LDS differently than their other Christian friends. We aren't to be trusted, or we're members of a weird cult, etc. Rather than denying that we are different, we embrace our differences, because we believe that is what makes us LDS. We do believe differently about the Godhead and the nature of God. We do believe a little differently about salvation, even if we believe almost the same basic steps of salvation. Yes, we do have differences of opinion about matters of Church history and the like, but I think by and large when it comes to matters of salvation, or what we call the plan of happiness, we largely agree amongst ourselves - that is we accept a LDS view of the gospel. This does make us different from other Christians. I'm sure right now you wouldn't be caught dead(no pun intended) doing baptisms for your deceased ancestors, while I enjoy getting emails about ancestors I didn't know about, for whom proxy work has not been done. So there are differences we embrace, while I think it best if we learn to drop some of the  cultural "hangups" about differences, I see nothing wrong in teaching how our Church teachings are different,  and even embracing those differences as part of our LDS identity. I see that as part of allowing our LDS gospel light to shine.

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why does she need you to talk to her?

Is she lonely?

Oh I get it.  Her husband is always busy with church...... 

 

Perhaps she needs to just know that I love her.

[CV75]

On 9/22/2018 at 2:09 PM, theplains said:

I believe that if a person really wishes to know God, He will put a person in his path to explain the gospel.  As for
the deceased, I don't believe in second chances after death.  I believe that its a subtle trap of Satan ... leading the
religious adherents (like Buddhists or Hindus) to procrastinate their choice to accept the message of Christ while
they are still alive when they hear people tell them not to worry because they will have the gospel preached to them
after death if their religion is wrong.

Jim

How will someone wish to know God if they have never heard of Him?

Are you saying that every person who has ever sensed that there is more to life than the physical realm and in the absence of Christian proselytizing came up with alternative beliefs did not really wish to know God after all (otherwise they would get proselytized)? That every altruistic and familial inclination in a non-Christian context an abomination?

I think that God has put me and other Church members in your path to explain the Gospel.

[CV75]

On 9/22/2018 at 2:15 PM, theplains said:

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  If you believed people did not have a second chance after death, how do you
believe God will judge people who never heard about Jesus and allow them entrance into heaven instead of consigning
them to hell?

Jim

You need to hear and receive the Gospel.

[CV75]

On 9/22/2018 at 2:23 PM, theplains said:

1 Peter is about those in the days of Noah.   

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."

What is the context?   The Bible explains it in the next verse.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a
preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

The Lord operated through Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).

Jim

He also operated through Enoch, who took Noah's proselytes with him.

But since His coming in the flesh and His victory over sin and death, He sends messengers on both sides of the veil before the final judgement to the very people you are condemning to hell. Mortality is not over until the resurrection, so it's really one chance after all.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, this is friendly banter - I am not offended in any way. First, I went to a thoroughly evangelical funeral yesterday - for three hours in total. A wonderful 90 year old Christian man passed away. There were probably 200 friends and family members there and dozens of floral sprays. There were three special songs, two eulogies and a sermon. Most of the two eulogies and the sermon focused on the atonement and sufficiency of Christ and encouraged anyone one present to make a commitment to him if they had not previously done so. All three clearly spoke about how our treasures are laid up in heaven and the impact of a Godly man. It was thoroughly evangelical in every way. I have been to and/or conducted many funerals, this one was a solid Christian and evangelical one, and it was at our chapel for a member of our ward and of "The Church." No evangelical I have ever met would have had one scintilla of discomfort at anything that was said. All three songs are in the Baptist hymnal and the Mennonite hymnal. "Nearer my God to Thee" was the main hymn sung. It was sung in Spanish, but methinks God is more than bilingual!

Ok now down to business. You asked a question....."what the heck this IS an evangelical since there is a different doctrine on every street corner?" This is a good question; one I have been asking about Mormons for years. Still not sure I have an answer since believing in the articles of faith is not adequate. First of all, let me get this off my chest - for a Mormon to question evangelicalism because evangelicals hold differing beliefs is what my momma used to call "the pot calling the kettle black!" I know many Saints and can guarantee you there are wide divergences among members of the LDS Church on 1. the first vision; 2. the historicity and authorship/translator role of the BOM. 3. the correct interpretation, meaning and translation of the POGP, 3. the correct sense of the "Great Apostasy," the 4. exact role and meaning of the priesthood, 5. the access and nature of the five levels of the five kingdoms of the afterlife (telestial, terrestial, and 3 celestials) - especially for non-Mormons; 6. the role of women in The Church; 7. gays and lesbians; 8. the role and meaning of the Holy Ghost; 9. the exact nature of continual revelation; and on and on. And this doesn't even include the wide gaps in understanding of LDS history - the traditional versus the "new Mormon history." The latter is of special interest to me. It really gets folks riled up.  So, don't talk to me about having different definable positions!

In Mexico an evangelical is anyone who is not Catholic or Jewish. It is a broad term for a Protestant and it does not include Mormons or Mennonites. The latter two are seen as cultures, almost races of their own. They are a kind of ethnicity. Evangelical in Spanish refers to a non-Catholic Christian whether Hispanic or Anglo.  This is a very broad definition and is not accurate, except in our unique Mexican culture. In today's US theological circles Christians tend to be divided into four groupings: fundamentalists, mainstream, evangelical, and "other." Some would include Pentecostals as a fifth group and some indicating that Pentecostals can be found in any of the main four streams. All this dividing up began in the late 19th and early twentieth century, culminating in the 1940's. These four streams are not the same as denominations. The terms sometimes refer to different denominations, but they are more accurately applied to individuals, not to groups. They are identities within themselves. For example, I know many fundamentalist Presbyterians; I know mainstream Presbyterians, evangelical Presbyterians. I am sure there are Pentecostal Presbyterians, especially in the south, but I don't personally know any. The same can be said for most denominations - but not all. It would take a good telescope to find a fundamentalist Unitarian-Universalist person. It would probably be hard to find a mainstream Plymouth Brethren as well. 

The Evangelical movement in the US began as a backlash to both the tenets of fundamentalism and of mainstream Protestant individuals, educational institutions and writings. Broadly speaking, mainstream Christianity became quite focused on social justice issues in the late 19th and early to mid 10th centuries - it seems they lost some of the focus on personal salvation on an individual kind. Their interpretation of Scripture changed dramatically. Fundamentalism reacted to that and asserted itself. Although there were any number of fundamentalists who were also socially progressive, like William Jennings Bryan for example, a Cumberland Presbyterian. He had strong individual beliefs that were peace-oriented, Biblically conservative, and socially progressive. In his lifetime evangelicalism did not exist as a movement. The fun of it all is that these terms are not particularly exclusive. Of course everyone has their own definitions, so it is messy. Kind of like talking to a member of the Community of Christ and a LDS person, and a LeBaron. Lots of shared beliefs, lots of differentiation. I digress. Evangelicalism developed in the forties as a reaction to fundamentalism and mainstreamers. Lots of water flowed into evangelicalism from both of the former thinking. There are groups to which individuals or certain denominations join, but they are not denominations themselves. Many fundamentalists have joined the IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) - they may be called Grace Baptist Church - they neither belong to any formal Baptist group, nor are they evangelicals. There is the NAE - the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE is not a denomination, but is a "home" for a certain Christian thinking that transcends denomination. Mainstream Christians gather in their own groups (The National Council of Churches) for example. Evangelicals are characterized by being Biblically conservative especially in hermeneutics, interested in proselytizing, being socially more diverse, valuing education, focusing on the atonement and grace, and being very inter or non-denominational. It is a second or third home for many. I am a Christian, I am an evangelical, and I am a Mennonite - probably in that order. If I became Mormon tomorrow, it would replace my Mennonite identification, my Christian and evangelical identity would stay intact. I have some fundamentalist heritage from my childhood. I am also socially rather progressive; very interested in social justice. I am also very interested in the "others." The word Evangelical is probably better thought of as an adjective than a noun.

Others such as Mormons, Anabaptists, conservative Catholics and Pentecostals are often placed in any of the groups, with the exception of mainstream (although there are Pentecostal Anglicans in the US and probably in England as well). Pentecostalism refers to specific beliefs about the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the same. Saints are most often placed in the "other" category because of the great confusion about their beliefs, and I think that many Saints are comfortable being the "other" as both a sociological (group) and theological construct. You often indicate that it is the Protestant who denies the Mormon the label of Christian. I don't question that, especially in the early and mid twentieth century. But I have clarity in my own mind that Mormons prefer to be the "other" and will vigorously resist becoming an acknowledged branch of Christianity. Such would risk their exclusiveness, their "onliness,"  their "trueness," which is the label most important. When I personally see Mormons bristle or frown is when I say "your grandson's baptism was no different than a Mennonite baptism!" When my wife says (like yesterday) "that funeral was no different than any other we have been to." Often Mormons ask us those questions. I sense they are hoping we say "it was wonderful, I have never seen anything like it." They rarely if ever seem pleased that we think it is the same as the same ordinance as practiced by their fellow-Christians (us). That disappoints them because they are absolutely sure that their way, manner, etc. is unique, better than, or at the very least for heavens sake, different from. For example, we often hear that Mormons don't dare interact with non-Mormons, especially the young people, because their "standards" will inevitably be compromised. The idea that other Christians might have similar or even higher standards is unthinkable. This is where I feel my wife and I are constantly watched. We confuse the folks because we are so similar to them, especially in our faith, standards, and lifestyle. I even had someone on this forum once ask me why I would tithe if I am not LDS (huh?). Certainly there are fundamentalist Mormons, evangelical Mormons, and probably a small percentage of mainstream Mormons who live miles away from Utah. I have books by some of them. There certainly are lots of "other" Mormons - probably the most comfortable slot for most I have met. Our bishop preached a wonderful gospel (not, The Gospel - as in the LDS Gospel)  message yesterday. It was wonderful.

Anyway I gotta run. I got hours today to spend in church ......err  ward ......err chapel .....err.......

Thanks for the clarification

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, this is friendly banter - I am not offended in any way. First, I went to a thoroughly evangelical funeral yesterday - for three hours in total. A wonderful 90 year old Christian man passed away. There were probably 200 friends and family members there and dozens of floral sprays. There were three special songs, two eulogies and a sermon. Most of the two eulogies and the sermon focused on the atonement and sufficiency of Christ and encouraged anyone one present to make a commitment to him if they had not previously done so. All three clearly spoke about how our treasures are laid up in heaven and the impact of a Godly man. It was thoroughly evangelical in every way. I have been to and/or conducted many funerals, this one was a solid Christian and evangelical one, and it was at our chapel for a member of our ward and of "The Church." No evangelical I have ever met would have had one scintilla of discomfort at anything that was said. All three songs are in the Baptist hymnal and the Mennonite hymnal. "Nearer my God to Thee" was the main hymn sung. It was sung in Spanish, but methinks God is more than bilingual!

Ok now down to business. You asked a question....."what the heck this IS an evangelical since there is a different doctrine on every street corner?" This is a good question; one I have been asking about Mormons for years. Still not sure I have an answer since believing in the articles of faith is not adequate. First of all, let me get this off my chest - for a Mormon to question evangelicalism because evangelicals hold differing beliefs is what my momma used to call "the pot calling the kettle black!" I know many Saints and can guarantee you there are wide divergences among members of the LDS Church on 1. the first vision; 2. the historicity and authorship/translator role of the BOM. 3. the correct interpretation, meaning and translation of the POGP, 3. the correct sense of the "Great Apostasy," the 4. exact role and meaning of the priesthood, 5. the access and nature of the five levels of the five kingdoms of the afterlife (telestial, terrestial, and 3 celestials) - especially for non-Mormons; 6. the role of women in The Church; 7. gays and lesbians; 8. the role and meaning of the Holy Ghost; 9. the exact nature of continual revelation; and on and on. And this doesn't even include the wide gaps in understanding of LDS history - the traditional versus the "new Mormon history." The latter is of special interest to me. It really gets folks riled up.  So, don't talk to me about having different definable positions!

In Mexico an evangelical is anyone who is not Catholic or Jewish. It is a broad term for a Protestant and it does not include Mormons or Mennonites. The latter two are seen as cultures, almost races of their own. They are a kind of ethnicity. Evangelical in Spanish refers to a non-Catholic Christian whether Hispanic or Anglo.  This is a very broad definition and is not accurate, except in our unique Mexican culture. In today's US theological circles Christians tend to be divided into four groupings: fundamentalists, mainstream, evangelical, and "other." Some would include Pentecostals as a fifth group and some indicating that Pentecostals can be found in any of the main four streams. All this dividing up began in the late 19th and early twentieth century, culminating in the 1940's. These four streams are not the same as denominations. The terms sometimes refer to different denominations, but they are more accurately applied to individuals, not to groups. They are identities within themselves. For example, I know many fundamentalist Presbyterians; I know mainstream Presbyterians, evangelical Presbyterians. I am sure there are Pentecostal Presbyterians, especially in the south, but I don't personally know any. The same can be said for most denominations - but not all. It would take a good telescope to find a fundamentalist Unitarian-Universalist person. It would probably be hard to find a mainstream Plymouth Brethren as well. 

The Evangelical movement in the US began as a backlash to both the tenets of fundamentalism and of mainstream Protestant individuals, educational institutions and writings. Broadly speaking, mainstream Christianity became quite focused on social justice issues in the late 19th and early to mid 10th centuries - it seems they lost some of the focus on personal salvation on an individual kind. Their interpretation of Scripture changed dramatically. Fundamentalism reacted to that and asserted itself. Although there were any number of fundamentalists who were also socially progressive, like William Jennings Bryan for example, a Cumberland Presbyterian. He had strong individual beliefs that were peace-oriented, Biblically conservative, and socially progressive. In his lifetime evangelicalism did not exist as a movement. The fun of it all is that these terms are not particularly exclusive. Of course everyone has their own definitions, so it is messy. Kind of like talking to a member of the Community of Christ and a LDS person, and a LeBaron. Lots of shared beliefs, lots of differentiation. I digress. Evangelicalism developed in the forties as a reaction to fundamentalism and mainstreamers. Lots of water flowed into evangelicalism from both of the former thinking. There are groups to which individuals or certain denominations join, but they are not denominations themselves. Many fundamentalists have joined the IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) - they may be called Grace Baptist Church - they neither belong to any formal Baptist group, nor are they evangelicals. There is the NAE - the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE is not a denomination, but is a "home" for a certain Christian thinking that transcends denomination. Mainstream Christians gather in their own groups (The National Council of Churches) for example. Evangelicals are characterized by being Biblically conservative especially in hermeneutics, interested in proselytizing, being socially more diverse, valuing education, focusing on the atonement and grace, and being very inter or non-denominational. It is a second or third home for many. I am a Christian, I am an evangelical, and I am a Mennonite - probably in that order. If I became Mormon tomorrow, it would replace my Mennonite identification, my Christian and evangelical identity would stay intact. I have some fundamentalist heritage from my childhood. I am also socially rather progressive; very interested in social justice. I am also very interested in the "others." The word Evangelical is probably better thought of as an adjective than a noun.

Others such as Mormons, Anabaptists, conservative Catholics and Pentecostals are often placed in any of the groups, with the exception of mainstream (although there are Pentecostal Anglicans in the US and probably in England as well). Pentecostalism refers to specific beliefs about the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the same. Saints are most often placed in the "other" category because of the great confusion about their beliefs, and I think that many Saints are comfortable being the "other" as both a sociological (group) and theological construct. You often indicate that it is the Protestant who denies the Mormon the label of Christian. I don't question that, especially in the early and mid twentieth century. But I have clarity in my own mind that Mormons prefer to be the "other" and will vigorously resist becoming an acknowledged branch of Christianity. Such would risk their exclusiveness, their "onliness,"  their "trueness," which is the label most important. When I personally see Mormons bristle or frown is when I say "your grandson's baptism was no different than a Mennonite baptism!" When my wife says (like yesterday) "that funeral was no different than any other we have been to." Often Mormons ask us those questions. I sense they are hoping we say "it was wonderful, I have never seen anything like it." They rarely if ever seem pleased that we think it is the same as the same ordinance as practiced by their fellow-Christians (us). That disappoints them because they are absolutely sure that their way, manner, etc. is unique, better than, or at the very least for heavens sake, different from. For example, we often hear that Mormons don't dare interact with non-Mormons, especially the young people, because their "standards" will inevitably be compromised. The idea that other Christians might have similar or even higher standards is unthinkable. This is where I feel my wife and I are constantly watched. We confuse the folks because we are so similar to them, especially in our faith, standards, and lifestyle. I even had someone on this forum once ask me why I would tithe if I am not LDS (huh?). Certainly there are fundamentalist Mormons, evangelical Mormons, and probably a small percentage of mainstream Mormons who live miles away from Utah. I have books by some of them. There certainly are lots of "other" Mormons - probably the most comfortable slot for most I have met. Our bishop preached a wonderful gospel (not, The Gospel - as in the LDS Gospel)  message yesterday. It was wonderful.

Anyway I gotta run. I got hours today to spend in church ......err  ward ......err chapel .....err.......

This problem that you call Mormon exceptionalism -- I don't think you have any understanding of the temple ordinances at all.

 Try as I might I cannot find an Evangelical Temple which purports to have its members make covenants with God that will allow them to become like him

 Yes we are quite exceptional. Guilty as charged.  We do after all worship a God who allows that. To me that means it is clear we are not alleged "Christians at all. We are at the exclusively true gospel of Jesus Christ. 

So I guess it is true that we worship a different God.   

Ours is nothing like a trinitarian cloud of substance.  Our God is a family that wants us to grow up and be just like Mom and Dad. They have bodies as tangible as ours, are imminent, not transcendent,  and exist somewhere in the universe spatio-temporally.

They are resurrected beings like Jesus himself is now. They are in the same bodily state that he is.

 Is that the kind of God you worship?

 Surely you see that as a major difference?

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Just stopping by to add a thought from one trinitarian about what we really believe.

“Trinitarian cloud of substance.”

As material beings, our language and concepts derive from sense data. It’s unavoidable that we use concepts grounded on matter to think. We can think no other way.  We trinitarians believe God is immaterial but became material in the God-Man Jesus, who revealed that God is one and also Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  

To grasp what trinitarians really believe, it’s crucial to understand that we believe you can properly think and form concepts about Jesus and the words he used, since the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in time and space, but we can’t form concepts of the divine nature itself, which is unknowable in principle. Concepts like cloud, substance, cloud of substance, ground of being, or consubstantial are fine as a starting point for delving into the mystery, so long as the contingency and limitation of all our concepts - all language - is kept continually in mind.  We believe we can experience God but not properly think God. We can know him as he is only if he reveals himself to us - and the sense of ‘knowing’ does not translate to forming adequate concepts sufficient to describe God.

Saints who had that experience of God inevitably used language to describe the encounter; as material beings, how could they not? But the words used do not - cannot - describe God as He is. The Saints would be the first to tell you this. Think Aquinas at the end of his life describing all of his work as dross. It’s fine to describe God using the terminology at hand, so long as the limitations are always kept in mind. The divine nature is a substance, but it’s also not a substance.  Some trinitarians forget this. They are thoroughly modern in that they think their concepts correspond to the reality. I know a few like this, who think God is an actual substance, in the same way as non-trinitarians, when they try to conceptualize what trinitarians believe about God. Both inevitably end up thinking that God really is a cloud of substance, or some type of gas. To get at what trinitarians really believe, start with the concepts given to point you in the right direction, but you have to eventually let them all go. They’re only pointers to God, not God Himself, no matter how refined. Concepts are the necessary starting points, but they’re also obstacles in the way.

"Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.~ St Gregory of Nyssa

Edited September 24, 2018 by Spammer

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This problem that you call Mormon exceptionalism -- I don't think you have any understanding of the temple ordinances at all.

 Try as I might I cannot find an Evangelical Temple which purports to have its members make covenants with God that will allow them to become like him

 Yes we are quite exceptional. Guilty as charged.  We do after all worship a God who allows that. To me that means it is clear we are not alleged "Christians at all. We are at the exclusively true gospel of Jesus Christ. 

So I guess it is true that we worship a different God.   

Ours is nothing like a trinitarian cloud of substance.  Our God is a family that wants us to grow up and be just like Mom and Dad. They have bodies as tangible as ours, are imminent, not transcendent,  and exist somewhere in the universe spatio-temporally.

They are resurrected beings like Jesus himself is now. They are in the same bodily state that he is.

 Is that the kind of God you worship?

 Surely you see that as a major difference?

 

 

Yes it is a major difference. There are many Christians with whom other Christians have major differences. Baptismal regeneration is a big one. The nature of the sacraments and the actual ordinance is another. The future in eternity for those who have not heard is another. Calvinism versus Arminianism is another. There are many differences between Christians but we don't deny the Christianity of those with whom we disagree. Now, you may not desire the label "Christian." That is your choice. Many of your coreligionists do desire that name. My biggest disagreement with you (used collectively) is that I do not believe you have exclusive truth any more than any other group who claims the atonement of Christ as a beginning point in conversion (to use your terminology). Your belief in your exclusivity and exceptionality is your blind-spot. However I would neither force the label Christian on you, or take it away from you regardless. When I see faithful Mormons every Sunday wiping away tears when they think of the struggle of the Savior in Gethsemane and on the cross - I see their hearts - While I object to scripture twisting and using scriptures in isolation I do believe in what Roman 10:10 tells us - "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Prior to last year, I never saw a Mormon's heart. I have had that privilege on a consistent basis over the course of the last year. Most of LDS exceptionality is wrapped up in their minds  and in their culture - not in their hearts. I rejoice in their hearts. Just my .02 cents.
 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Yes it is a major difference. There are many Christians with whom other Christians have major differences. Baptismal regeneration is a big one. The nature of the sacraments and the actual ordinance is another. The future in eternity for those who have not heard is another. Calvinism versus Arminianism is another. There are many differences between Christians but we don't deny the Christianity of those with whom we disagree. Now, you may not desire the label "Christian." That is your choice. Many of your coreligionists do desire that name. My biggest disagreement with you (used collectively) is that I do not believe you have exclusive truth any more than any other group who claims the atonement of Christ as a beginning point in conversion (to use your terminology). Your belief in your exclusivity and exceptionality is your blind-spot. However I would neither force the label Christian on you, or take it away from you regardless. When I see faithful Mormons every Sunday wiping away tears when they think of the struggle of the Savior in Gethsemane and on the cross - I see their hearts - While I object to scripture twisting and using scriptures in isolation I do believe in what Roman 10:10 tells us - "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Prior to last year, I never saw a Mormon's heart. I have had that privilege on a consistent basis over the course of the last year. Most of LDS exceptionality is wrapped up in their minds  and in their culture - not in their hearts. I rejoice in their hearts. Just my .02 cents.
 

So with all these differences, which is the one which represents "one faith and baptism" ?

 I wonder how you explain how Joseph re-created sacraments, and carried their implications further, now found in Coptic Orthodoxy, perhaps the oldest extant Christian group?

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Yes it is a major difference. There are many Christians with whom other Christians have major differences. Baptismal regeneration is a big one. The nature of the sacraments and the actual ordinance is another. The future in eternity for those who have not heard is another. Calvinism versus Arminianism is another. There are many differences between Christians but we don't deny the Christianity of those with whom we disagree. Now, you may not desire the label "Christian." That is your choice. Many of your coreligionists do desire that name. My biggest disagreement with you (used collectively) is that I do not believe you have exclusive truth any more than any other group who claims the atonement of Christ as a beginning point in conversion (to use your terminology). Your belief in your exclusivity and exceptionality is your blind-spot. However I would neither force the label Christian on you, or take it away from you regardless. When I see faithful Mormons every Sunday wiping away tears when they think of the struggle of the Savior in Gethsemane and on the cross - I see their hearts - While I object to scripture twisting and using scriptures in isolation I do believe in what Roman 10:10 tells us - "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Prior to last year, I never saw a Mormon's heart. I have had that privilege on a consistent basis over the course of the last year. Most of LDS exceptionality is wrapped up in their minds  and in their culture - not in their hearts. I rejoice in their hearts. Just my .02 cents.

Thanks Navidad for rejoicing in our hearts.  That is an "exceptional" approach (joking...kind of).  I do wonder what your problem with exceptionalism is though.  Unless you view all doctrines as equally true in the eyes of God, then you too believe your doctrines to be exceptional.  If the Mormon approach is wrong, blind, or lesser than (as you seem to imply), then your approach is exceptional to ours.

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So with all these differences, which is the one which represents "one faith and baptism" ?

 I wonder how you explain how Joseph re-created sacraments, and carried their implications further, now found in Coptic Orthodoxy, perhaps the oldest extant Christian group?

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

 

Hi there. Just a reminder that Coptic Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same in every respect, apart from their christology (miaphysitism vs diaphysitism, respectively).  Coptic and EO chrismation rituals share an identical purpose and theology, although the wording is somewhat different.

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way for the text of the anointing ritual:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chrismation.doc

Edited September 24, 2018 by Spammer

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So with all these differences, which is the one which represents "one faith and baptism" ?

 I wonder how you explain how Joseph re-created sacraments, and carried their implications further, now found in Coptic Orthodoxy, perhaps the oldest extant Christian group?

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

 

Sorry, I am not following you. I am not sure which sacraments Joseph "re-created." Certainly the laying on of hands as an ordinance  has been practiced consistently from New Testament times in a number of settings and groups. I had hands laid on me three times in two different denominations in my life, not any of which was for being sick. Orson Hyde and Sidney Rigdon both came out of Campbellite groups, who practiced the laying on of hands. It is apparent that Hyde had a lot to do with the creation and codification of early Church doctrines. He may have written that letter (Wentworth?) that became the articles of faith. I don't remember exactly and don't have time to look it up, but I think he wrote the letter. The early Methodists preceded the Saints and certainly practiced confirmation by the laying on of hands. The Coptic rite as you linked to is quite elaborate and was practiced on babies. You do have my attention, however. Please tell me more about specific sacraments that the early Mormons re-created from the early church that were not in place in other denominations in 1830 or before? Rigdon had a huge influence on the Campbell brothers, as he did on Joseph. He was Joseph's Melanchton. "Which one" is your question? Christianity represents the one faith and one baptism, the one Lord, and the one God, Spirit and Father. The one is the tree; not the branches. Don't forget all the other "ones" in Eph. 4. The context is vital. I do not believe Paul was talking about the form or manner of baptism. He was talking, I believe about spiritual baptism (not water) which is the baptism "into Christ" of Galatians 3. Paul repeatedly uses that phrase. That is the one baptism - the baptism into Christ. Certainly the one faith is the Christian faith. The one Lord is the one master - Christ. The one Spirit is the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Godhead are there! Aren't you proud of me, I didn't say all three persons of the trinity are there? I know you wouldn't like that! 😊

[Spammer]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Coptic rite as you linked to is quite elaborate and was practiced on babies

It’s practiced on anyone entering the church, not just babies.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks Navidad for rejoicing in our hearts.  That is an "exceptional" approach (joking...kind of).  I do wonder what your problem with exceptionalism is though.  Unless you view all doctrines as equally true in the eyes of God, then you too believe your doctrines to be exceptional.  If the Mormon approach is wrong, blind, or lesser than (as you seem to imply), then your approach is exceptional to ours.

No, I think you are misunderstanding me. You see I distinguish between doctrines that are essential for one to be a Christian. Those are non-debatable. There are probably not more than four of them. All the rest are details; the details are non-essentials to name the name of Christ. I would include in them many if not all of the unique LDS beliefs (exaltation, spirit children, etc.). I think Mormons believe all the same essentials. I have a very small core of essential beliefs. All the rest we will find out who was right and can rag on each other for all of eternity. For example, I believe in foot-washing as an ordinance. That is a non-essential. I don't believe it is an exceptional doctrine. I believe in peace and conflict resolution as a spiritual trait. It is not an essential doctrine. I don't play cards; I don't think that is doctrine at all; I think it is culture - kind of like the Word of Wisdom. Mennonites have their own Word of Wisdom. It isn't essential. It reflects beliefs learned form the group - not from the gospel. My concern about LDS exceptionalism is in the insistence of being "the only true and living church." That makes all the rest of us false and dead, but the literal meaning of the words. I do not believe that. I hope that helps.

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, Spammer said:

It’s practiced on anyone entering the church, not just babies.

Ok....I wasn't thinking of adult converts. At any rate the LDS laying on of hands is a much less formal and simpler rite, probably more similar to that practiced by Protestants than that practiced by the Orthodox Church. BTW, I visited an Antiochian Orthodox Church in San Diego on a a number of occasions. I really enjoyed it - althought my Arabic is non-existent. 

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My concern about LDS exceptionalism is in the insistence of being "the only true and living church." That makes all the rest of us false and dead, but the literal meaning of the words. I do not believe that. I hope that helps.

I hear you there, but I also feel like I've explained a million times over that LDS *do* acknowledge others as Christian.  We aren't calling anyone else's faith dead or anything like that.  

How am I, and LDS person, supposed to convey that to a non-LDS person without "same differencing" beliefs?  Cause yes, while I enthusiastically acknowledge a Calvinist as a Christian with a living faith, I also honestly don't belief the idea of limited-atonement is Christ's Truth.  Yes, I'll happily acknowledge your relationship with Christ, but would still also like to teach you the Truth that Christ died for ALL mankind?

 

(Obviously the above Calvinist example is just an example with generic "you"s)

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No, I think you are misunderstanding me. You see I distinguish between doctrines that are essential for one to be a Christian. Those are non-debatable. There are probably not more than four of them. All the rest are details; the details are non-essentials to name the name of Christ. I would include in them many if not all of the unique LDS beliefs (exaltation, spirit children, etc.). I think Mormons believe all the same essentials. I have a very small core of essential beliefs. All the rest we will find out who was right and can rag on each other for all of eternity. For example, I believe in foot-washing as an ordinance. That is a non-essential. I don't believe it is an exceptional doctrine. I believe in peace and conflict resolution as a spiritual trait. It is not an essential doctrine. I don't play cards; I don't think that is doctrine at all; I think it is culture - kind of like the Word of Wisdom. Mennonites have their own Word of Wisdom. It isn't essential. It reflects beliefs learned form the group - not from the gospel. My concern about LDS exceptionalism is in the insistence of being "the only true and living church." That makes all the rest of us false and dead, but the literal meaning of the words. I do not believe that. I hope that helps.

I would argue that there is no doctrine which is essential for one to be Christian.  Christian is a man made term, defined by man, not God.  Ultimately, it is not about being a Christian (whatever your definition of choice may be), it is about the doctrines which are essential for salvation/exaltation (whichever your doctrine prefers).  

I would argue that every "essential" doctrine is debatable.  If you show me a Christian doctrine, I will show you where it has been debated, so you can't really say they are "non-debatable".  All you are really doing is setting your "essential" doctrines up as exceptional/superior to others. 

I suppose you see Mormon doctrine as subscribing to those 4 non-debatable doctrines, and therefore we are Christian (correct me if I am wrong).  But what about those faiths who do not subscribe to those "non-debatable doctrines", are you not demonstrating your own version of exclusivism and exceptionalism to them, just like we are to you?  I would argue that such an approach is even more divisive and exclusive than Mormonism, since we don't claim that a man needs to subscribe to ANY "essential" doctrine in this life to receive salvation/exaltation. 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by pogi

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would argue that there is no doctrine which is essential for one to be Christian.  Christian is a man made term, defined by man, not God.  Ultimately, it is not about being a Christian (whatever your definition of choice may be), it is about the doctrines which are essential for salvation/exaltation (whichever your doctrine prefers).  

I would argue that every "essential" doctrine is debatable.  If you show me a Christian doctrine, I will show you where it has been debated, so you can't really say they are "non-debatable".  All you are really doing is setting your "essential" doctrines up as exceptional/superior to others. 

I suppose you see Mormon doctrine as subscribing to those 4 non-debatable doctrines, and therefore we are Christian (correct me if I am wrong).  But what about those faiths who do not subscribe to those "non-debatable doctrines", are you not demonstrating your own version of exclusivism and exceptionalism to them, just like we are to you?  I would argue that such an approach is even more divisive and exclusive than Mormonism, since we don't claim that a man needs to subscribe to ANY "essential" doctrine in this life to receive salvation/exaltation. 

 

I just posted you a long reply and then accidentally shut it down when my son came in to show me something on YouTube. I don't have the energy to re-create it. Maybe tomorrow!

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Ok....I wasn't thinking of adult converts. At any rate the LDS laying on of hands is a much less formal and simpler rite, probably more similar to that practiced by Protestants than that practiced by the Orthodox Church. BTW, I visited an Antiochian Orthodox Church in San Diego on a a number of occasions. I really enjoyed it - althought my Arabic is non-existent. 

Any similarity between Coptic/Eastern Orthodox anointing and LDS practices pertains to the LDS temple, not to the LDS confirmation ritual where the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed by the laying on of hands. In Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the anointing is part of bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism (confirmation/chrismation...same thing). In the LDS tradition, anointing the body with oil is not part of confirmation.  Instead, it’s part of a separate initiatory ritual found only in the temples.  

I became an Orthodox catechumen in an Antiochian Church. I love Psalms chanted in Arabic...and in English, Slavonic, Coptic, Greek, and Aramaic, all of which can be found in Orthodox churches in the US.

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Spammer