Do the majority of members of the Latter-day Saints Church want to be known as Christians?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Phil,

I think this is one area where members of the Church have some confusion. I think we emphatically desire to be known as disciples and followers of Jesus Christ. As such, we want to be recognized as Christian. Yet, this is where the confusion lies - we want to be recognized as Christian and we still want to remain apart. This is tied up with our beliefs in the Restoration of the Church. For members of the Church, we do not have an understanding of how there are so many Protestant churches - they stem from Catholicism, yet have no story of a restoration or being directed by God to start their own churches. In many ways, this confuses us and we too often discount them for this underlying reason. 

I think in many ways we, as a people, do not feel accepted by the Christian world. Far too often we hear the attacks of the rather ignorant anti-Mormons and assume that is how all of Christianity views us. Evangelicals are some of the most notorious for their ridiculous attacks on Church beliefs and teachings. As a young man, I remember visiting people in the south that were convinced that Mormons had tails, that we were demons of a sort. These wild and wooly tales came from their pastors and preachers that were more interested in demeaning the evil Mormons rather than actually discuss real doctrinal differences. 

I do think that members of the Church, and the Church itself, will find a more amicable place within Christianity. This will be observed in ever more cooperation in serving the needy and the downtrodden. Though we may all one day learn to respect one another's beliefs, I am not hopeful that we will actually well understand one another's beliefs.

I worry about those in both camps who seem not to want to understand each other's beliefs. There is a group dynamic behind both sides that is very unhealthy. If it were about something other than religion it would be deemed bias, prejudice, stereotyping, etc. I am with you in hoping for respect, and at least honoring different beliefs without attaching labels to each other. I think the biggest hurdle in this case (Saints and other Christians) is the lack of understanding each other. We are like the Brits and the Americans who have so often been characterized as being divided by a common language.

That is probably why I frustrate some of you so much. I think understanding is the key to both respect and honoring. There is much about LDS Christianity that I don't understand. Someone here complained I think I know so much. I think I know an awful lot about Mormon history (still the term), but understand very little about LDS Christian's doctrine. I think I understand how Latter-day Saint history has forged and impacted much of its doctrine, but understanding the doctrine, nope! I keep asking over and over, especially when different ones of you who I know to be faithful Saints give different answers. Of course, to be fair so do the Protestants on this forum. A couple of them - I have no idea what they are talking about so I simply ignore them!

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but we also want to remain unique. We are demanding that way.

Well if your goal is being unique, you are doing a good job! 😀That is a joke!

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, most who do so identify themselves as evangelicals in my experience.

Well, they might do that, but of course that doesn't make them evangelicals. Fundamentalism in today's culture has taken on a negative connotation. And I bet half of the ones you are talking about wouldn't know the difference if it bit them. Come down here some day and I will take you two hours south to meet hundreds of Mormons you didn't even know existed in the Church of the Firstborn! They certainly consider themselves Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are now sending missionaries to them!

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, most who do so identify themselves as evangelicals in my experience.

 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, BonhoefferFan said:

I am quite ok with being considered Christian. 

Bonhoeffer would have been proud!

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   I just don't concern myself over that label any longer. I never really thought about it until it was brought up in discussions forums and I was not shy about registering my opinion on the subject, but ultimately it is just a label. It is more important to me how I am viewed by the Christ than how other professing Christians view me.

Glenn

Well said!

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Would this be true if Heavenly Father was not once a man who became a God like the LDS Church teaches?

Thanks,
Jim

I didn't say that. I just quoted it. Someone else will have to answer that.

[Avatar4321]

We are baptized in the name of Christ. At our baptism we promise to take upon ourselves the name of Christ. All our activity and teachings help us to become more like Christ. I don’t think there’s a people more deserving the name of Christian than us 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

Well, they might do that, but of course that doesn't make them evangelicals. 

Serious question...do you view refusing to allow them to be called as they see themselves, to refuse them to be part of the evangelical community exclusionary or elitist?

Edited October 14, 2018 by Calm

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

We are baptized in the name of Christ. At our baptism we promise to take upon ourselves the name of Christ. All our activity and teachings help us to become more like Christ. I don’t think there’s a people more deserving the name of Christian than us 

Well Said

[Navidad]

Just now, Calm said:

Serious question...do you view refusing to allow them to be called as they see themselves, to refuse them to be part of the evangelical community exclusionary?

I am not sure how to answer your question or what you are getting at. They can certainly call themselves evangelicals, but by definition they aren't. They might be saying they are evangelists. They might be saying the are evangelizing. They might be saying they are practicing evangelism. I don't exclude them from the evangelical category; they exclude themselves by their behavior towards LDS-Christians, evangelicals, Catholics, Pentecostals or any other group or person who doesn't fit their brand of orthodoxy. Evangelicals are much more likely to put Mormons on the platform with them for inter-faith events. Evangelicals are split about the Christianity of Latter-day Saints while Fundamentalists are almost all anti-. That brings up one more point and it is a generalization - fundamentalists self-identify as to what they are against: abortion, evolution, Mormons, etc. Evangelicals are much more likely to describe themselves by what they are for - a high view of Scriptural interpretation, inter-faith communities, the family, getting along instead of berating, and perhaps most important finding similarities instead of differences and making friends instead of enemies. All the goofy Youtube videos from Temple Square that I have seen are clear fundamentalism at its loudest. Many of the different groups in Protestantism that confuse you all can easily be broken down by understanding fundamentalism, evangelicalism, and mainstream groups. Specific doctrinal ideations such as reformed, Arminian, Pentecostal can now be found in all three groups. Doctrinal camps are not the differentiator. Typical me; I have said a lot and may not have answered your question.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints so vehemently are not evangelicals. They are fundamentalists. There is a significant difference. I think you have hit the nail on the head. LDS Christians seem to me to want to be in the fold while being apart, different from, the "other." In family therapy it is called the "go away closer disease." When one family member is abused, he or she wants to hug the abuser while at the same time pushing him (usually) away. It is a trigger for real mental health issues. A lot of folks have studied the the LDS Christians in this regard. It is pretty interesting stuff.

Well, I don't think it's about us wanting to be "in the fold" of Protestantism/Catholicism -- given what Joseph Smith was told in the First Vision this would be silly.  What we get grumpy about is to have that perfectly benign label, "Christian", denied to us by others simply because we don't adhere to the non-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.  I am a Christian, despite what some divinity school graduate says.

In older times, to be called "not a Christian" was to be called a pagan.  It was an insult.  And it seems that this is how it is intended today, as well.

[Waylon]

I am a born-again Christian AND a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

My religion is exactly the same religion as the early first-century Christian fathers.  Not an approximation, not an evolution, but the same exact religion.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't a type of Christianity.  it IS Christianity.  To say it isn't is historically inaccurate.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Would this be true if Heavenly Father was not once a man who became a God like the LDS Church teaches?

Thanks,
Jim

I find that to be an interesting question.

From a completely abstract point of view, what difference does it make?  The Latter-day Saints believe that Heavenly Father is a perfect being, the Supreme Being, and the Father of Jesus Christ, the creator of the Universe whom we worship. Whether we believe that the Father hasn't always been that way, as opposed to the belief that he always has been that way, what kind of difference does it make?  Just saying that what we believe isn't orthodox doesn't seem to have much power behind it.

In fact, making a dispute about it seems rather similar to a dispute between aficionados of pizza sauce about the inclusion of a bay leaf in the recipe.

On the other hand, if we believed that Jesus Christ were just a mortal teacher who had good ideas, that might seem to be a deal breaker.  Since we are very adamant about Christ being the sinless Son of the Eternal God, whose sacrifice cleanses us from sin and makes it possible for us to be reconciled to God, I don't see the problem with the label "Christian."  

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

From a completely abstract point of view, what difference does it make?  The Latter-day Saints believe that Heavenly Father is a perfect being, the Supreme Being, and the Father of Jesus Christ, the creator of the Universe whom we worship. Whether we believe that the Father hasn't always been that way, as opposed to the belief that he always has been that way, what kind of difference does it make? 

That would mean that God the Father is not the ultimate God, not the creator of reality, existence, being, and so forth. These are important attributes to most Christians. God must be THE supreme being, not merely a great and powerful being.

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, Waylon said:

I am a born-again Christian AND a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

My religion is exactly the same religion as the early first-century Christian fathers.  Not an approximation, not an evolution, but the same exact religion.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't a type of Christianity.  it IS Christianity.  To say it isn't is historically inaccurate.

Actually neither orthodox Christianity or Mormonism is identical to the various forms of first century Christianity. Not that there was such a thing as a single orthodox Christianity in the first century.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

In fact, making a dispute about it seems rather similar to a dispute between aficionados of pizza sauce about the inclusion of a bay leaf in the recipe.

The nature of God, His eternalness and His supremacy, are very important to me. I don’t think you understand the Christian position on God if your analogy is a bay leaf. 

[strappinglad]

Didn't I just read about the early church wherein Paul was faced with disputes between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians and Roman Christians etc. ?

The more things change...

[Storm Rider]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The nature of God, His eternalness and His supremacy, are very important to me. I don’t think you understand the Christian position on God if your analogy is a bay leaf. 

Because everyone knows it should be a cloverleaf. 😉

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

That would mean that God the Father is not the ultimate God, not the creator of reality, existence, being, and so forth. These are important attributes to most Christians. God must be THE supreme being, not merely a great and powerful being.

I know that it seems to matter to them.  But it's purely theoretical.  What difference does it make to us mere creations if God is GOD rather than just God?  If we cannot understand God at all (their position), then what's the difference between them?  Mathematically, Infinity+1 is, in absolute terms, greater than plain Infinity.  But what difference does it make?  None at all, to us.  This is why I compared the matter to the difference between pizza sauce with and without a bay leaf.

Never mind.

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know that it seems to matter to them.  But it's purely theoretical.  What difference does it make to us mere creations if God is GOD rather than just God?  If we cannot understand God at all (their position), then what's the difference between them?  Mathematically, Infinity+1 is, in absolute terms, greater than plain Infinity.  But what difference does it make?  None at all, to us.  This is why I compared the matter to the difference between pizza sauce with and without a bay leaf.

Never mind. 

Let's put it another way - why does it matter to you that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons? Would it really make a difference if they were one person? It wouldn't change God's love or power.

Or why would it be important that the Father has a body of flesh and bones, and isn't a spirit? Would that really change anything?

[carbon dioxide]

I see the word Christian to be a very general term just like "ice cream".  There are more flavors of Christian than there is ice cream. Just as not all ice cream is the same, not all Christians are the same.  So yes I think we want to be known as Christian but we want to be known far more than that.  We believe that our version of of Christianity is the right and best one while recognizing other versions out there which is something that some other Christians do not want to recognize in us. 

[Stargazer]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Let's put it another way - why does it matter to you that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons? Would it really make a difference if they were one person? It wouldn't change God's love or power.

Or why would it be important that the Father has a body of flesh and bones, and isn't a spirit? Would that really change anything?

I just want us to stop declaring each other as anathema or non-Christian because we differ on this.  

I can argue that it is important for the Father to have a body of flesh and bones, and the rest of it, because truth matters.  I don't want there to be a war over it.

You're familiar with Latter-day Saint theology, even if you don't believe in it.  Isn't it important for our exaltation to understand that the Godhead consists of three separate personages, not some three-way thing that is somehow melted together?  If we are to inherit all that the Father has, to be a joint-heir with Christ, are we going to expect to become a triune being in their supposed mold?  Our nature is singular, it is not plural.  If it is important for men to understand that the Atonement confers the possibility of being exalted, doesn't then the nature of God need at least to be basically understood?  And if we understand the nature of God falsely, what drives us to do what it is needful to do in order to inherit it?

[Stargazer]

Changed my mind

Edited October 15, 2018 by Stargazer

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

I must admit to a bit of confusion. At some cost, I have been very avid in stating that LDS Christians are just that - Christians. Then I read various posts on this forum like this one that seem to indicate that members of the Church prefer to think of themselves as different from, probably superior to, the rest of Christendom.

It is true that Protestants and Roman Catholics consider themselves "Christian," and a part of "Christendom."  However, their non-biblical definition of those terms is troubling. and even heretical in many cases. Out of mere politeness and out of a desire to be ecumenical, any group can make a pretense of including the "other" in that larger grouping, but is that honest?

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

"The LDS belief is closer to the truth about God than Christianity, but the LDS have their own errors to rationally work through as they reach for the light." It seems there has been interest on the part of folks like Stephen Robinson to work on bringing us under the same Christian umbrella, but at the same time a sense on the part of some that members of the Church are not Christian and don't want to be known as such.

The late Stephen Robinson was very interested in exploring the width of the divide between the LDS faith and the false claimants to the NT tradition.  He found that the LDS faith does have a lot in common with apostate versions of that authentic NT tradition. yet differ at crucial points.  Someone intent on being a good neighbor might simply ignore those problems

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Has there ever been an official statement by the Brethren about this? Don't the Brethren see themselves as Christians? The Christian tent is diverse on non-essential beliefs and firm on certain core beliefs that I believe that LDS Christians believe. Yet, I sense a real divergence among the LDS Christians on this forum regarding their interest in becoming "mainstream." That seems to be a negative concept for many.

In order for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be "mainstream" would require that Church to adopt "mainstream" policies and doctrines.  At that point, it would cease to be "Christian."

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

I personally believe we all gain from what we can learn from each other, but certainly some Christians don't believe that as well as some Saints. It is almost like just at the time some in the mainstream Christian world is beginning to accept Saints as such, the Saints are saying "No thank you." We are perfectly content being the "other," the "peculiar people." Being Mennonite I understand that to some degree. We have always thought of ourselves as being non-Protestant, more restorationist that reformational, a "peculiar people," a "third way" (from Catholics or Protestants), the quiet in the land, etc. etc. But, we do this from a firm foothold in the great and greater Christian community. I understand it when Saints contrast themselves and their beliefs with Protestantism, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, etc. but I get really confused when you contrast yourselves to Christians. In six hours I will head off to three hours of services, the vast majority of which will be completely Christian in nature, essence, and teaching. Is this hesitation that I "feel" from many of you based on 190 years of distrust, feeling persecuted and not wanting to cozy up to the gentile, enemy world that mainstream Christianity represents? Will Saints ever let that go, is it a badge of honor, or not relevant to the topic? I value your input....................

We admire loving kindness, regardless of the source of that high value, and someone like Mother Teresa or C. S. Lewis can spur us all on to greater efforts to understand and put into practice the teachings of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, we have the harsh view of mainstream "Christianity" taken by Bertrand Russell, who sees it as very dangerous and irrational.  Why would anyone want to be a part of an apostate group?  Of course apostasy is in the eye of the beholder.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You can look up conference talks as well as I can

 

Is there a reason you cannot receive messages?  I wanted to send you a PM, but...

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have been very encouraged by this Pew Research article. I would encourage you all to read it. It documents the lessening of the opposition between Christian groups. I find that heartening. It is so much better for us to focus on our commonalities than on our differences. I also think I read somewhere that Pew has documented over 200 different groups who identify themselves as "Mormon," defined by being follower of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I need to find the citation.

I think the issue is they are basically being cornered into calling themselves Mormon by the questioning. Yes, there are other groups who follow Joseph Smith as a prophet(although they do not accept the same revelations), and who believe the Book of Mormon - there are even a few evangelical type preachers who will use the Book of Mormon. But do they self-identify as "Mormon?" I think most do not - especially the non-polygamous sects.

Quote

So, welcome to the diverse world of Protestant pluralism! Ha! Here is the link (I am not sure the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are aware of the trend described in the article):

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/31/after-500-years-reformation-era-divisions-have-lost-much-of-their-potency/

I am certainly aware of the trend in modern Christianity. Gone are the days when the minister will get up on the podium and rail against the churches down the road - the "splinter-Baptist" church, the Methodist, etc. People are much, much freer about just finding a place they enjoy to worship at, and are much less likely to be loyal to their father's sect for instance.  LDS too are taught by our scriptures not to be critical of other religions, or not to contend against them. See D&C 18:20. For His Church are those who repent and follow Him. D&C 10:67,  This does not mean that we do not correct errors, but we generally do not strive against them. Rather, we are to stand as a light of the truths of the gospel and the kingdom.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I just want us to stop declaring each other as anathema or non-Christian because we differ on this.  

I can argue that it is important for the Father to have a body of flesh and bones, and the rest of it, because truth matters.  I don't want there to be a war over it.

You're familiar with Latter-day Saint theology, even if you don't believe in it.  Isn't it important for our exaltation to understand that the Godhead consists of three separate personages, not some three-way thing that is somehow melted together?  If we are to inherit all that the Father has, to be a joint-heir with Christ, are we going to expect to become a triune being in their supposed mold?  Our nature is singular, it is not plural.  If it is important for men to understand that the Atonement confers the possibility of being exalted, doesn't then the nature of God need at least to be basically understood?  And if we understand the nature of God falsely, what drives us to do what it is needful to do in order to inherit it? 

Okay, take a step back. Look at how important these nuances are to you. Then re-read what you wrote here:

Quote

I know that it seems to matter to them.  But it's purely theoretical.  What difference does it make to us mere creations if God is GOD rather than just God?  If we cannot understand God at all (their position), then what's the difference between them?  Mathematically, Infinity+1 is, in absolute terms, greater than plain Infinity.  But what difference does it make?  None at all, to us.  This is why I compared the matter to the difference between pizza sauce with and without a bay leaf.

Never mind. 

 

Now you can understand why orthodox Christians find it so important to affirm that God has certain characteristics.