Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 1:47 PM, churchistrue said: If someone claims to be a Christian, I think you should call them a Christian. I agree.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 2:55 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said: One important thing to remember is that every teacher is a volunteer, and does the best he or her can. Very often quote mining to reflect what they which to convey. Even when choosing a General Conference address, they choose aspects (or quotes) that emphasize their strongest views. I did not leave the Baptist Church because I did not like it, in fact I love it! Nor did I leave it because it was not filled with good people, or Christian people. I left because I knew the Book of Mormon, was indeed the word of God, and the Baptist Church did not have it. Also as the Bible teaches, and as my Father taught me, “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. Well said and true of many teachers.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 3:15 PM, Amulek said: What kind of Christian do you mean: a self-identified Christian, a devout Christian, a Christmas-and-Easter Christian, a Born Again Christian, a struggling Christian, an unorthodox Christian, etc.? I don't mean to hem and haw, but the term "Christian" covers quite a bit of ground. It entirely depends on how you define it. For example, do you think it is possible for someone to be a professed Christian without being an authentic Christian? (honest question) As far as the church goes, Latter-day Saints tend to accept anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as a Christian. And how are we to know if someone truly believes in Jesus? The best we can do in mortality is follow the Savior's observation: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. So, yes, I think Dan Cathy is a Christian - just like the millions of other people throughout the world who are trying to build a relationship with and follow our Savior Jesus Christ. Yes, I believe it is very possible for someone to be a professed Christian without being an authentic Christian.Thanks for your helpful reply.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 6:16 PM, CA Steve said: The questions you ask assume a uniform view as to what it means to be a Mormon. Since you have been around us a lot, you should know that simply is not true. So the answers you get here will be as diverse and wrong as the ones you can get in a ward house.My opinion is that if we could ask Christ, he would tell us he cares very little for labels and is more concerned with how we treat our fellow human beings. You are absolutely correct. BTW, FWIW, my wife liked your response the best! One of the greatest challenges to a non-LDS Christian trying to understand Mormonism is the lack of "a uniform view to what it means to be a Mormon" among Mormons. I recently read a book by a member of the Church who is a professor. He entitled the book "Mormonism My Way." I enjoyed reading it, but it certainly highlighted the wide scope of beliefs within the Church. Fairly confusing stuff.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 10:51 PM, Glenn101 said: Political ideology seems to put blinders on people where they can only see their own viewpoints. There is little to no rational political discussion. It mostly seems to be emotional. Political ideology seems to have become a sort of religion to all too many. I didn't sense they were trying to bring politics into the Quorum as much as highlighting examples of those who seem to have a similar perspective on things as President Oaks. I was interested in the conversation for two reasons, I knew Truett Cathy and it is not often that non-LDS sources are mentioned, let alone praised in various Sunday services.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 6:42 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said: What a horrible thing to bring up in church, politics is not even permitted on this discussion board, nor others devoted to defending our Faith. Whomever tried to (or did) interject politics in your Ward should be ashamed, and should have their Bishop warn them not to never do so again. Church, any Church, is not a place to air political opinions, no matter their views. Again, I don't think they saw their comments as political, but as an example of others who share President Oaks' perspectives. Certainly some might see President Oaks' comments in his talk (the subject of our meeting) as political as well. I don't. I see them as his weighing in on what he believes to be important and correct moral perspectives.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 6:59 PM, Rain said: It's one of the reasons I don't worry if someone defines Christian with the necessity of God being Trinity and don't consider me Christian. I figure Christ knows my heart and that's really all that matters. Well said. There certainly are those who require a belief in the trinity for someone to be considered a Christian. I am much more comfortable with your perspective. Thanks.
bluebell Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 12 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said: Yes, so I think ¨heretical Christian¨ is a good designation for either party by the other party. Perhaps one factor that led me to conflate them is that I thought I read in those quotes references to ¨Apostate¨ Christianity/Christendom as not the historical group who apostatized (as you both correctly pointed out is proper) but the non-LDS Christians that were the LDS leaders´ contemporaries. I could be wrong on this, so I´ll double check as I get the quotes and citations ready for you, Calm. Hopefully it will be tonight, certainly no later than tomorrow. Heresy means a belief that is contrary to orthodox Christianity, so for the church in general, most members do not think of non-LDS Christians as heretics (though I know a lot of Christians that think of us that way). Typically we don't think of them as anything but sincere but wrong about some stuff. Members, even leaders, have labeled non-lds christians in different ways over the years but that doesn't mean anything for the church in general. I know that's difficult for non-LDS to understand and deal with (I know it would be much easier to discuss our theology if it was easier to pin down) but it is what it is. We aren't under any obligation to change our theology so it's easier for non-members to deal with. 2
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 17 hours ago, Calm said: Contrary to what many nonLDS seem to think ( and a small percentage of LDS), we are not required by God to be locked into every viewpoint held by our previous leaders even if spoken across the pulpit. Infallibility has never been part of our doctrine. And given we have seen leaders change their own views at times over the years, we should respect them enough not to lock them into eternal positions. Your posts are always very helpful. I went through LDS.org to review what Saints believe about non-LDS Christians being truly Christian. I wasn't successful in that hunt. It seems that the focus is on whether or not LDS Christians are Christians, not on what the Church teaches today about the Christian nature of non-LDS Christians. It would be helpful to folks like me if more was said about the corollary of the "are Mormons Christians discussion? The closest helpful statement in Robinson's article on LDS.org is "No one "owns the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God." I would love to read an article, maybe written by one of you that as clearly states the corollary question about whether non-LDS Christians are Christians in the perspective of the modern-day Church. Otherwise folks will continue to quote from Pratt and others.
CA Steve Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 18 hours ago, Calm said: Infallibility has never been part of our doctrine. Our orthodoxy may not claim infallibility, but I think our orthopraxy does, especially when it comes to living leadership, 1
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, bluebell said: We aren't under any obligation to change our theology so it's easier for non-members to deal with. Hmmm.....I am not sure about that. If your obligation is to convert non-LDS Christians to your fuller and more complete truth, it might be easier to do so if your theology were "easier for non-members to deal with." 😎 For that matter it might be easier if your theology were "easier for members to deal with!" Ha!
Calm Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: It seems that the focus is on whether or not LDS Christians are Christians, not on what the Church teaches today about the Christian nature of non-LDS Christians. This is because, like bluebell points out, the vast majority of Saints including our leaders don't have any issue with calling Christians Christians and don't feel the need to label them anything more than Christian. So we don't feel the need to discuss or debate who is truly a Christian anymore than we need to discuss who is Canadian. If it happens as it did in your ward, it is a very unusual approach, imo. Edited April 17, 2019 by Calm 2
Calm Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Heresy means a belief that is contrary to orthodox Christianity, so for the church in general, most members do not think of non-LDS Christians as heretics (though I know a lot of Christians that think of us that way). Typically we don't think of them as anything but sincere but wrong about some stuff. Members, even leaders, have labeled non-lds christians in different ways over the years but that doesn't mean anything for the church in general. I know that's difficult for non-LDS to understand and deal with (I know it would be much easier to discuss our theology if it was easier to pin down) but it is what it is. We aren't under any obligation to change our theology so it's easier for non-members to deal with. I agree, I think I have only used the label in a discussion similar to this one. I normally just think we hold different views from each other and feel no need to label either. I prefer to discuss the beliefs themselves. Edited April 17, 2019 by Calm 1
Calm Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Our orthodoxy may not claim infallibility, but I think our orthopraxy does, especially when it comes to living leadership, Explain please.
member10_1 Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 12:00 PM, Navidad said: I am going to try very hard to ask this question well? I don’t want to irritate any of you; or hear you say with some disgust, “We have already answered that!” If I understood the answer, I wouldn’t ask the question again. It is as simple as that. Or maybe, it is simple because I am simple. I would only add in my defense that I really need to know and understand; and I don’t. I apologize in advance if that is offensive to any of you. I came home very frustrated and sad from ward yesterday. As you all know it isn’t the first time; probably won’t be the last. I enjoy Sunday School and Sacrament. Elders Quorum is honestly, a whole different matter. Yesterday they (because I don’t engage) discussed President Oak’s talk from October. I remember 50 pages of interaction on that one talk on this forum. I am pretty much done trying to understand the terms “salvation,” “saved,” “exaltation,” and “exalted” from an LDS perspective. It is too hard. So far, I have found at least six or seven different usages and meaning for the word “salvation” in LDS theology. Some co-mingle with exaltation, some do not. With no offense intended, it seems to me that many Saints don’t understand the different usages of the term salvation in LDS doctrine. If that is true, how can I possibly hope to put it all together? I can’t. So, instead, I am trying to focus on and understand the use of the term “Christian” in LDS doctrine. I am not having much more success. I have a row of books on my shelf by both Saints and non-LDS Christians entitled in one form or another “Are Mormons Christians?” The answers contained in each vary depending on the author. I would say the answer is 50% in the affirmative and 50% in the negative, depending on the author, his or her purpose, scope, and beginning perspective. Most LDS sources, answer “yes.” I have made up my own mind on that, with an affirmative answer, so I am not struggling with that question. I am still struggling with the question, do Mormons consider “Christians to be Christians” if they are not Mormon? Yesterday, there was a discussion in Elder’s Quorum about how wonderful “Chick-fil-A” is as a company. It was in the context of President Oak’s mention of gender and marriage. Several men praised Chick-fil-A’s position on a host of issues. Several said they eat there every chance they get to support the message that Chick-fil-A is communicating which they see to be in-line with that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even though I know Truett Cathy, the founder and president of the company, have preached in his church, slept in his home, and both my wife and I have spoken at one of his annual conferences for all his managers (a combination of business advice and old fashioned gospel meeting), I didn’t say a word. After the meeting, some of us were chatting and I stuck my toe into the water, or my foot into my mouth? I asked them what they knew about Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A. They knew nothing. I explained he was a Southern Baptist elder and one of the Godliest men I have ever met. We discussed his firm commitment to his faith. They nodded their heads and smiled. Then I made a mistake. I asked a couple if they thought Truett Cathy was a Christian? They hemmed and hawed, and hawed and hemmed. One explained that “Brother Cathy” was a spirit brother with Christ. I explained that isn’t what I was asking. Did they believe he was a Christian? My next question was going to be, did they believe after all this time of knowing my wife (who, by the response from all the ladies who came up to her after) had given a beautiful testimony yesterday in Sacrament service and me, did they think we are Christians? However, I thought better of asking that. That would have been too uncomfortable for them and for me. I don’t fear asking you all these questions so much. I only fear your scorn and disgust that I am asking something again. So, was Truett Cathy a Christian (in an Acts 11 sense)? I am sure most of you know the witness of the company he founded and led. I can only fill in for you that he was a Southern Baptist Elder, a leader in his church, and a wonderful Godly man, married to a wonderful Godly woman for a hundred years, has a strong family, and was right up there with the Godly Mormons I have known. There is no question in my mind he clearly identified as a Christian, part of the greater Christian family. So, in the LDS way of thinking, “Is a non-LDS Christian a Christian?” What exactly does it mean to be a no kidding, real live Christian from a LDS perspective? At the end of the day, I think Jesus’ goal is for people to develop the compassion and initiative needed to relieve suffering. I don’t think he cares much about the beliefs or practices we adopt as long as they help us accomplish that goal as best we can.
Navidad Posted April 17, 2019 Author Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) Interesting . . . after reading many of the replies in this thread, I just went to my email and read my latest email notification from Kofford Books. The book being marketed is a new book written by Blake Ostler. The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. It doesn't contrast Mormon and Mennonite notions about God, or Methodist and Mormon notions about God, or Catholic and Mormon notions about God, but "Christian and Mormon notions about God." If Mormons are Christians (as LDS.org indicates) and if Christians are Christians, then why is there a need to distinguish between Christian and Mormon notions about God? Why not title the book ""Exploring Christian Thought: subtitle the book "Varying Christian notions about the Attributes of God." I can't imagine a book whose description is "Christian and Presbyterian notions about God" or "Catholic and Christian notions about God." It simply seems to me that Saints prefer to be known as Christians but to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. At the same time non-LDS Christians are more than ever open to accepting Saints as Christians, but have a need to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. Edited April 17, 2019 by Navidad
bluebell Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Hmmm.....I am not sure about that. If your obligation is to convert non-LDS Christians to your fuller and more complete truth, it might be easier to do so if your theology were "easier for non-members to deal with." 😎 For that matter it might be easier if your theology were "easier for members to deal with!" Ha! I would hope that us not having any set doctrine on how to classify non-LDS Christians isn't going to hold anyone back. I agree though, things are a lot easier when they aren't messy and are clear cut all the time. But easier isn't always better. 2
bluebell Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 26 minutes ago, Navidad said: Interesting . . . after reading many of the replies in this thread, I just went to my email and read my latest email notification from Kofford Books. The book being marketed is a new book written by Blake Ostler. The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. It doesn't contrast Mormon and Mennonite notions about God, or Methodist and Mormon notions about God, or Catholic and Mormon notions about God, but "Christian and Mormon notions about God." If Mormons are Christians (as LDS.org indicates) and if Christians are Christians, then why is there a need to distinguish between Christian and Mormon notions about God? Why not title the book ""Exploring Christian Thought: subtitle the book "Varying Christian notions about the Attributes of God." I can't imagine a book whose description is "Christian and Presbyterian notions about God" or "Catholic and Christian notions about God." It simply seems to me that Saints prefer to be known as Christians but to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. At the same time non-LDS Christians are more than ever open to accepting Saints as Christians, but have a need to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. I used to be a member of a group that discussed religion with lots of members from different denominations and the Evangelical Christians were always talking about "The Christians and the Catholics." It used to confuse me to no end. Eventually I realized that they weren't referring to Catholics as separate from Christians because they didn't consider them to be Christian, it was just their way of delineating between their beliefs and Catholic beliefs. I'm guessing that Ostler's book is using doing the same. It sounds like it's comparing and contrasting non-LDS Christian belief with LDS Christian belief but that he phrased it in a way that a lot of non-lds Christians would find appealing (since they don't consider us to be Christian). But even if that's not what Ostler is doing, how he phrases a book title, or even his beliefs, don't mean anything for the church at large. His book is his opinion. He doesn't speak for the church or the members. 3
Amulek Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Navidad said: The book being marketed is a new book written by Blake Ostler. The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. It doesn't contrast Mormon and Mennonite notions about God, or Methodist and Mormon notions about God, or Catholic and Mormon notions about God, but "Christian and Mormon notions about God." If Mormons are Christians (as LDS.org indicates) and if Christians are Christians, then why is there a need to distinguish between Christian and Mormon notions about God? Why not title the book ""Exploring Christian Thought: subtitle the book "Varying Christian notions about the Attributes of God." I think the unstated premise, as likely to be understood by his intended audience (if, in fact, it was truly his idea to title the book in that manner in the first place, as opposed to his publisher's), is that he is referring to mainstream / traditional Christian notions about God as opposed to notions about God which are unique to Latter-day Saints. While Latter-day Saints affirmatively claim the title of Christian, we have no problem acknowledging that we hold certain theological beliefs about the nature of God that are fundamentally different than those held by the vast majority of Christians. You can call that 'other' group of Christians whatever you like: credal Christians, traditional Christians, mainstream Christians, historical Christians, etc., but if you just say "Christians" I think that's what most people are going to think of. And, since many non-LDS Christians tend to think of the Church as being outside the realm of Christendom, I can see how the title would communicate to them exactly what the book's contents are likely about. Edited April 17, 2019 by Amulek 3
Amulek Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 17 hours ago, Navidad said: The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. I thought of an example that might be analogous. Say you were in a bookstore and saw a book description which stated, "In this first volume, So-and-so J. Knows-it-all explores American and Puerto Rican notions about politics." Or perhaps if it were explore "American and Samoan notions about cuisine" instead. Would you be similarly confused by those titles? After all, Puerto Rico and Samoa are both U.S. Territories, which means they are Americans. But, while that is certainly true, I think it's fair to say that that's not what most people think of when you say "American." They assume you are talking about the people who live in the 50 states (and DC). They wouldn't normally think you are talking about people who live in Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa. While those are all technically part of the main set of "Americans," they are also fairly unique subsets of that category. And if I wanted to write a book comparing only Puerto Rican thoughts on politics with mainstream American political thought, then I think "American and Puerto Rican notions on politics" would communicate that in a way that "Exploring Political Thought: Varying American Notions About Politics" just doesn't. If I saw the latter, I would assume it would be about mainstream American political thought, but I certainly wouldn't think it had anything to do with Puerto Rico, and I would be kind of surprised to find out that's what the whole book was about once I started reading it. Might even think it was a bit of false advertising. Just something to consider. 2
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 20 hours ago, Navidad said: Interesting . . . after reading many of the replies in this thread, I just went to my email and read my latest email notification from Kofford Books. The book being marketed is a new book written by Blake Ostler. The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. It doesn't contrast Mormon and Mennonite notions about God, or Methodist and Mormon notions about God, or Catholic and Mormon notions about God, but "Christian and Mormon notions about God." If Mormons are Christians (as LDS.org indicates) and if Christians are Christians, then why is there a need to distinguish between Christian and Mormon notions about God? Why not title the book ""Exploring Christian Thought: subtitle the book "Varying Christian notions about the Attributes of God." I can't imagine a book whose description is "Christian and Presbyterian notions about God" or "Catholic and Christian notions about God." It simply seems to me that Saints prefer to be known as Christians but to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. At the same time non-LDS Christians are more than ever open to accepting Saints as Christians, but have a need to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Gordon_B._Hinckley_say_that_Latter-day_Saints_do_not_worship_the_biblical_Jesus%3F At one time Gordon B. Hinckley stated that LDS believe in a differenct Christ. And FairMormon explains what he meant by it. But honestly, it left out the part that the LDS believe JC/God are not spirits but are physical. And I don't know if the Mennonites believe this or not, but it seems the EV's believe that Jesus Christ and God are one person. LDS believe they are different and distinct. That is the only difference, and I'm sure you're well aware of these beliefs for sure. But thought I'd bring it up no matter how simple. Maybe others have mentioned the difference in the beliefs. But don't other non LDS Christians believe differently about God/Jesus Christ, don't some believe they are separate as well? Or is it a wide swoop that the only way to know you're a true Christian is to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?
RevTestament Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 22 hours ago, Navidad said: I went through LDS.org to review what Saints believe about non-LDS Christians being truly Christian. I wasn't successful in that hunt. It seems that the focus is on whether or not LDS Christians are Christians, not on what the Church teaches today about the Christian nature of non-LDS Christians. It would be helpful to folks like me if more was said about the corollary of the "are Mormons Christians discussion? The closest helpful statement in Robinson's article on LDS.org is "No one "owns the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God." I would love to read an article, maybe written by one of you that as clearly states the corollary question about whether non-LDS Christians are Christians in the perspective of the modern-day Church. Otherwise folks will continue to quote from Pratt and others. Of course we are. This is why I have stressed being called LDS Christian. I do not wish the Church to be known as the Mormon Church. This will be a transition period for the Church, but it needs to happen. The saints went through a period where it did distance itself from other Christian sects by calling them Gentiles. The Church considers itself to be grafted in with the tribes of Israel. Maybe this was OK for awhile, but I don't see any such distinctions as being useful anymore. 20 hours ago, Calm said: This is because, like bluebell points out, the vast majority of Saints including our leaders don't have any issue with calling Christians Christians and don't feel the need to label them anything more than Christian. So we don't feel the need to discuss or debate who is truly a Christian anymore than we need to discuss who is Canadian. 20 hours ago, Navidad said: Interesting . . . after reading many of the replies in this thread, I just went to my email and read my latest email notification from Kofford Books. The book being marketed is a new book written by Blake Ostler. The description states: "In this first volume Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God." This is the kind of distinction that informed my original post and confuses me to no end. It doesn't contrast Mormon and Mennonite notions about God, or Methodist and Mormon notions about God, or Catholic and Mormon notions about God, but "Christian and Mormon notions about God." If Mormons are Christians (as LDS.org indicates) and if Christians are Christians, then why is there a need to distinguish between Christian and Mormon notions about God? Why not title the book ""Exploring Christian Thought: subtitle the book "Varying Christian notions about the Attributes of God." I can't imagine a book whose description is "Christian and Presbyterian notions about God" or "Catholic and Christian notions about God." It simply seems to me that Saints prefer to be known as Christians but to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. At the same time non-LDS Christians are more than ever open to accepting Saints as Christians, but have a need to keep a healthy distance (separation) within that categorization. Again which is why I prefer the label of LDS Christian, since other Christians are still married to their labels. This allows them to categorize me while still placing me in the Christian camp. I am totally OK with this. There were the early Christians and there are the latter day Christians of Daniel. Makes perfect sense to me. What you are saying is that they still have trouble putting us in their Christian camp... they "have a need to keep a healthy distance..." Yep. They aren't so unprejudiced as you would like to think. I know. I have tried to post as Christian on websites, and most won't let me. It seems they have trouble digesting what the scriptures really say. Their loss. I am only trying to offer things they have not considered, but that is another conversation. Suffice it to say that I believe for the reasons you have given that LDS Christian is the most appropriate way to go. Let me know if you think of something better. But to be straightforward, as a LDS Christian I do have a different concept about the Godhead then trinitarians. Would it help you if that was in the title of the Book? In the LDS way of thinking, traditionally the label of Christian gets married with the label of Trinitarian, so we use Christian instead when really we mean Trinitarian. That doesn't make for a very nice book title I guess. We just don't speak of Trinitarians. It is off-putting, but that is the real distinction I think your are not quite putting your finger on. The Church of Jesus Christ is a non-trinitarian Christian Church. There aren't a lot of them, and many trinitarian Christians are not willing to call us Christian for that reason - they associate Christianity with trinitarian theology and creeds, and use these things to exclude us from "Christianity." I have no issue being excluded from "orthodoxy" - that term is associated with a lot of concepts I do not find compelling - nor true. It's a term which arose with the state Church of Rome, and I feel does not apply to early Christianity, which I believe the Lord sought to restore in this Church. Their distinction really doesn't matter too much to me. Trinitarianism will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history, and true Christianity will be revealed again like the brightness of the morning star. 1
RevTestament Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Gordon_B._Hinckley_say_that_Latter-day_Saints_do_not_worship_the_biblical_Jesus%3F At one time Gordon B. Hinckley stated that LDS believe in a differenct Christ. And FairMormon explains what he meant by it. But honestly, it left out the part that the LDS believe JC/God are not spirits but are physical. And I don't know if the Mennonites believe this or not, but it seems the EV's believe that Jesus Christ and God are one person. LDS believe they are different and distinct. That is the only difference, and I'm sure you're well aware of these beliefs for sure. But thought I'd bring it up no matter how simple. Maybe others have mentioned the difference in the beliefs. But don't other non LDS Christians believe differently about God/Jesus Christ, don't some believe they are separate as well? Or is it a wide swoop that the only way to know you're a true Christian is to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh? Unfortunate terminology. I certainly do believe in the Biblical Yeshua.... just not the Trinitarian/orthodox one... whom I might add is not found in scripture. I offer that I worship the biblical Yeshua much more closely than orthodox, who plainly do not accept some of the things He taught with the true spirit they are taught. To be upfront in this sense I do worship a different Yeshua because mine is true and speaks to me, while theirs is based on man-made concepts and ideas. You can hang on to their idea that the Father is only spirit, but that is based on an incorrect interpretation of John. Doesn't scripture also say He is the Father of spirits? What does that make us? Are we therefore merely invisible spirit? That interpretation is typical of early Christian understanding but is not scriptural. Did the Father lie to Moses when He told Him no man can see Me and live? How do you see an invisible spirit? The idea of being only an invisible spirit is one of those false notions inherited from Judaism. Yes, our beliefs are different, but they are scriptural... and biblical.
MiserereNobis Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 On 4/16/2019 at 5:40 PM, Calm said: President Hinckley said to him: “‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’ I've disagreed with this statement here before. President Hinkley shows his misunderstanding of Christianity when he says this. It's also a straw man. Go to a Christian and say, "you're all about the dead Christ and not the living Christ, right?" and see how they respond -- they'll tell you that's not their position, which is the definition of a straw man. Whether or not you'd like to use crosses is of course up to you. But this is misunderstanding the most pivotal moment of Christianity: the death of God to redeem us. The resurrection didn't redeem us; it completed the process and showed that Christ was indeed the immortal God who could not be contained by sin or death. But to brush off His death with a statement like this is, honestly, quite strange from someone who claims to be Christian. 1
MiserereNobis Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 On 4/16/2019 at 5:40 PM, Calm said: “[The minister] then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’ “I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith.” This also misunderstands what a symbol is, though it is a good idea. Someone's faith should be manifested in their lives. But that's not a symbol.
Recommended Posts